Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT)Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Colonel Clifton Brown): The Amendments proposed by the promoters are drafting Amendments.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means: These promoters' Amendments are purely for the correction of clerical errors.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read the Third time.

West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (SUPERANNUATION)ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Harbour (Superannuation)," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (KIRKINTILLOCH STREET IMPROVEMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-

land) Act, 1936, relating to Dunbartonshire County Council (Kirkintilloch Street Improvement)," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lanarkshire County Council," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW ELECTRICITY, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Motherwell and Wishaw Electricity, etc.," presented by Mr. Colville; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (NEWS-LETTER PROPAGANDA).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made to the British by the German Government with regard to the issue to German subjects in Germany of statements of opinion and fact by Commander Stephen King-Hall; and what reply has been sent?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): None, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Have any suggestions on this subject been received from His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin?

Mr. Butler: Naturally we have communications from His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin in the ordinary course of business. We have had no official representations from the German Government.

Mr. Mander: Is there any objection to British subjects exercising their liberty to tell the truth as they see it to German subjects?

Mr. Duncan: Is it quite clear that Commander Stephen King-Hall had no communication or conversation with the Foreign Office before writing these letters?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on Friday to the right hon. Gentleman for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) from which he will see that we repeated the categorical denial given in the German broadcast of 14th July that His Majesty's Government are in any way connected with or responsible for these letters.

Mr. Mander: Have the Government any objection to them?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a very good thing to send this information to Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister particulars of the results of the investigations made by the British Ambassador to Spain with reference to the five British subjects who are still under arrest as a result of the recent civil war?

Mr. Butler: Of these five British subjects, four have been convicted on criminal charges and are undergoing varying terms of imprisonment, while one is awaiting trial.

Mr. Day: Have the Foreign Office given instructions for legal aid to be furnished to the one awaiting trial?

Mr. Butler: We have asked His Majesty's Ambassador to take a close interest in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the Anglo-Japanese negotiations in Tokyo?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the Tokyo negotiations?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The negotiations opened in Tokyo on Monday, 24th July, and the meetings so far held have dealt only with questions of procedure and fact finding.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask whether the reply of the Japanese Government to the Tokyo formula has been to take measures which restrict the food supplies of Hong Kong, to blockade the Pearl River and the Shameen and to arrest a British official at Shanghai?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to the serious reactions in America to this Tokyo agreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese Government have yet furnished His Majesty's Government any evidence showing the guilt of the four Chinese alleged to have murdered a Japanese agent at Tientsin?

Mr. Butler: This is one of the matters which will be discussed during the conversations which have just opened at Tokyo, and at present I have nothing to add to previous statements.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall not hand over these four Chinese until evidence of their guilt has been produced?

Mr. Butler: I have given an assurance on this very matter to the hon. Member and the House on previous occasions.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that the Chinese have a right to try these individuals, which neither the Japanese Government nor the British Government have?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the recently-concluded agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government will preclude His Majesty's Government from continuing to regard the Chinese Government as the de jure Government of all China; from providing, in their discretion, further financial assistance to the Chinese Government; or from a complete observance of the provisions of the Nine-Power Treaty?

Mr. Cartland: asked the Prime Minister whether the recent agreement with Japan precludes His Majesty's Government from assisting General Chiang Kai-Shek's régime by granting it credits or otherwise?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As the Prime Minister stated in the House on 24th July, the declaration does not connote any change in the general policy of the Government towards China.

Mr. Henderson: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement issued by the Japanese Foreign Office this morning to the effect that following this agreement the Japanese Government expect His Majesty's Government not to grant any further financial assistance to the Chinese Government, and does that not indicate that the Japanese Government put a different interpretation on the agreement?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Member asked me the view of His Majesty's Government, which I have given him very clearly, that is to say, that it does not connote any change in our policy towards China.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that mean that in the view of His Majesty's Government the Tokyo formula in no way recognises belligerency?

Mr. Butler: There is another question on the Paper on that point.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are any representations being made about the extension of the blockade policy to Canton?

Mr. Butler: This whole matter is under consideration.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement giving particulars and the dates of any help given to China since the beginning of the present dispute by members of the League of Nations and by the United States of America?

Mr. Butler: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the statement made by my Noble Friend at the League Council meeting on 22nd May, in which he gave a general account of the measures taken by His Majesty's Government. I am not in a position to make an authoritative statement about measures taken by other Governments.

Mr. Price: Will the Under-Secretary say whether the recent agreement with Japan in any way prejudices financial or other economic assistance for China in the future?

Mr. Butler: I think I have answered that question this afternoon, and the Prime Minister answered it in a recent statement.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to any steps which have been taken, by which Powers and when, to discourage and pre vent the sale to Japan of aircraft, arms, munitions or war material?

Mr. Butler: No licences have been issued for the export of war material from this country to Japan since 4th February, 1938. My Noble Friend is not aware that any Government has made any public statement on this matter apart from a circular communication addressed by the United States Government to manufacturers, the text of which was published in the last annual report of the National Munitions Board to Congress.

Mr. Price: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Japanese aeroplanes shot down recently at Chunking had guns on them which had been manufactured in this country?

Mr. Butler: I should be very glad to receive any information about that which the hon. Member has.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the Under-Secretary aware that an enormous quantity of munitions has been supplied to China by Germany?

Mr. Butler: Yes, that is certainly the case.

Mr. N. Maclean: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about that.

Mr. Butler: I have stated quite categorically that no licences have been issued for the export of war materials from this country to Japan since 4th February, 1938. That is a perfectly categorical statement.

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether any invitation has been sent by the Council of the League of Nations in consultation with the Far Eastern Committee to study the practical application of measures of aid to China in accordance with the resolution of the League Council in May, 1939, and with what result; and, if no such invitation has been sent, whether His Majesty's Government will urge such steps to be taken without delay?

Mr. Butler: The invitation contained in the Council resolution was addressed to the members of the League, and I cannot say what are the views of other Governments.

Mr. N. Maclean: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now recognised the war aims of Japan in China; and whether all further negotiations between this country and Japan are to be conducted on the basis that a large portion of China has been conquered by Japan and is now under their jurisdiction?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Maclean: If that is the case, why is it that all these negotiations are going on between this Government and the Japanese Government in a territory that does not belong to either of them?

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister referred to the situation as one of fact, and that is what we are considering all the time.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that neither Government has a right to consider a question of fact that applies to China and not to them?

Mr. Butler: Sometimes one has to consider facts, however unpleasant.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that Burns said:
Facts are chiels that winna ding,
An' downa be disputit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the negotiations between Monsieur Molotov and Mr. Strang?

Mr. Dalton: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement on the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

The Prime Minister: Fresh instructions were sent to Sir William Seeds last night, and I hope to be in a position to make a Statement early next week.

Mr. Dalton: Is it right, as stated in the Press, that it has now been agreed to send military and naval officers to Moscow for staff talks?

The Prime Minister: We have sent certain instructions to Sir William Seeds, but we have not yet heard what are the reactions.

Mr. Mander: Are the French Government also proposing to send a military mission to Moscow?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer about the French Government, but I can assure the House that the French Government and the British Government are acting in full collaboration.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Nazi forces in Danzig persist in fortifying the Free City; whether these fortifications constitute a breach of the strategic integrity of Danzig; and, if so, whether he proposes any action?

Mr. Butler: While some military preparations have been undertaken in Danzig, the information in the possession of my Noble Friend does not at present lead him to view the situation with undue concern.

Mr. Adams: Does that mean that the answer to the second limb of the question is in the negative?

Mr. Butler: It is a little difficult to define what the hon. Member has in mind. Perhaps he will tell me what he has in mind and I shall be able to give him a clearer answer.

Mr. N. Maclean: Can the right hon. Member explain what he means by "un-due concern" and what is "due concern"?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FLYING BOAT "CONNEMARA."

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air when the joint report, being prepared by his Department and the Home Office, on the cause of the loss of the 24-ton flying boat "Connemara" by fire, at Hythe, on 19th June, will be issued?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): It has been ascertained that the fire in question originated not in the flying boat but in the barge, and accordingly the question of issuing a report on the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

PRACTICE FLIGHTS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many flights by Royal Air Force bomber squadrons have been made over French territory up to date; and whether similar flights over other friendly countries are contemplated?

Sir K. Wood: Three flights have taken place to date. In regard to the second part of the question, as I informed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on Wednesday last, it is hoped that other practice flights will be possible, but I am not at present in a position to give any details.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement in regard to flights over this country by squadrons of French aircraft; and whether similar facilities will be extended to the air forces of other friendly nations?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that this matter is now under consideration by the French Government. I am prepared to consider any requests for similar facilities that may be made.

AUXILIARY FORCES.

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether lapel badges for members of the Auxiliary Air Force are now available and when distribution to units will be completed?

Sir K, Wood: Yes, Sir. Approximately 75 per cent, of the badges are now available for distribution and the remainder should be available by the end of this month.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will explain fully the functions and the varying status of the Auxiliary Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, and the Air Cadets; the reason for so many categories, and the cost per unit of each?

Sir K. Wood: The Auxiliary Air Force consists of flying squadrons and balloon barrage squadrons recruited on a Territorial basis, intended to play their part in the air defence of this country as units. The Air Force Reserve, including the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve is designed to provide trained individuals to act as reinforcements to the regular air force in time of war. The Air Force Reserve proper comprises mainly personnel with previous service in the regular Air Force, and the Volunteer Reserve is composed mainly of those without such service. Thus each force meets a different requirement in our defence organisation. The Air Defence Cadet Corps is an organisation sponsored and administered by the Air League of the British Empire with a view to stimulating interest in air matters and giving elementary training in aircraft and maintenance to boys who join the Corps. The Corps receives small cash grants and certain assistance in kind from the Air Ministry. I regret that comparative figures of cost are not available.

Mr. Williams: What is the difference in the cost in the buildings and equipment generally of the Auxiliary Air Force and of the Air Force Reserve, and what is their difference of function either in time of peace or of emergency?

Sir K. Wood: I doubt whether those matters are really comparable, as they perform different functions.

Mr. Crossley: Is there any age-limit under which recruits are not taken?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I recently issued a statement on that matter which I will send to my hon. Friend.

AIR STRENGTH.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, since it is contrary to the public interest to disclose the existing air strength of Great Britain at any specified moment, he will arrange to publish the relevant figures in arrear after the lapse of a period of, say, three to six months?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. It would not be in the public interest to publish the figures suggested.

Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister think that such retrospective publication, which would do no harm, would help to foster our national self-confidence?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am advised that it would, in fact, give an indication of our rate of expansion.

CIVIL AVIATION (DE-ICING).

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to state the result of his consideration of the methods employed by foreign competitors of British air lines for protection against ice accretion; and in particular whether he will now adopt the recommendation of the Civil Airworthiness Committee appointed by the Air Ministry that the equipment of British air liners with de-icing systems shall be made compulsory?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on Wednesday last, the issue of further regulations on the subject of de-icing equipment for passenger-carrying aircraft is under review and it is hoped to make an early statement. The recommendations of the Civil Airworthiness Committee published in Air Ministry Pamphlet No. 86 were implemented by the issue of Air Navigation (No. 3) Regulations, 1938, which came into force on 1st November last. Since then the protection of instruments and radio apparatus in aircraft capable of carrying ten or more persons including crew, whenever weather conditions predisposing to ice formation are indicated, has also been made compulsory by the issue of the Air Navigation Regulations, 1939, which came into operation on 1st April last.

Sir R, Bird: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I impress upon him the urgency of doing something in this matter, in view of the great increase in the number of aircraft and the near approach of ice-forming conditions in the early autumn?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make as to the progress of the salvage of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis"?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the attempts to salve the "Thetis"?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The question of what further steps should be taken to salve His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" is being considered by all the parties concerned, in the light of the recent unsuccessful attempt to lift the submarine.

Mr. Adams: May I take it that there is no intention of abandoning the efforts at salvaging this boat?

Mr. Shakespeare: Our only desire is that this submarine may be salved as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are any charges falling upon public funds at the present time in connection with these attempts at salvage; also, in the event of the underwriters who are financing them being no longer able to defray the expenses of the salvage, is it the intention to assist the attempts at the public expense?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is a hypothetical question and I would rather the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it on the Paper; if I say that we are taking every step to see that the "Thetis" is salved, perhaps that will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, whilst recognising that differentiation in pensions to the dependants of the "Thetis" disaster as between officers and other ratings is a matter of Service practice, he will instruct the representative of the Royal Navy on the committee responsible for the disbursement of moneys now being received in response to public appeal, to try to secure that no such differentiation shall be made in respect of those disbursements?

Mr. Shakespeare: This matter is one for decision by the council which has been set up by the Lord Mayor to administer the fund referred to, and I do not consider that it would be proper for me to issue instructions in the sense proposed by the hon. Member.

Mr. Green: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that the Naval representative on this committee at least raises the question, in order to get it considered?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think they can be trusted to see that justice is done.

Mr. Logan: Is not a principle at stake, and should there not be intervention in order to see that this public fund is administered so as to prevent people having to seek Poor Law assistance because of the loss of their relatives?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am sure that will be prevented.

PROMOTIONS.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men in the Navy were promoted to the rank of warrant officers last year, and how many to commissioned ranks during the same period; and in each case what was the percentage of candidates for promotion who were promoted?

Mr. Shakespeare: During 1938, 200 promotions were made to warrant and 150 promotions from warrant rank to commissioned rank. Twenty-four direct promotions to acting sub-lieutenant and acting sub-lieutenant (E) were made. Full details concerning the candidates for direct promotion are contained in the answers given to the hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Parker) and Newton (Sir R. Young) on 16th November, 1938, and 6th July, 1938, respectively. Promotion to warrant rank or commissioned rank from warrant rank requires a recommendation.

Mr. Leslie: Is that what the Minister calls the democratisation of the Navy, since such a very small percentage of experienced men has been promoted?

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Mr. Leslie: On a point of Order. Was there anything wrong with my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I stopped the hon. Member because he was asking the Minister to give an expression of opinion.

Mr. Alexander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the schools attended before joining the Navy of the 24 successful candidates and the 17 rejected candidates, respectively, of theseamen ratings who have this year undergone the nine-months course of training for commissioned rank and recently appeared before the Final Selection Board?

Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer involves a list of some length, I will, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

The 24 successful candidates attended the following schools before joining the Royal Navy:


Chatham Junior Technical School
2


Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
2


Park Street Elementary School, Brighton
1


Creighton School, Carlisle
1


George Watson's College, Edinburgh
1


Thomas Riches, Gloucester
1


Training Ship "Warspite"
1


Training Ship "Arethusa"
1


Westcliff High School 
1


Price's Secondary School, Fareham
1


Training Ship "Mercury"
1


Brighton Grammar School
1


Watts Naval Training School
1


Lewis Grammar School, Glamorgan
1


Richmond County School 
1


Bronspick Avenue Elementary School, Hull
1


Kimbolton Grammar School, Huntingdonshire
1


Hamilton Crescent Secondary School, Glasgow
1


St. Boniface, Beaconsfield, Plymouth 
1


Wivenhoe Elementary School, Essex 
1


Mathematical School, Rochester 
1


Christs Hospital School 
1

The 17 unsuccessful candidates for pro-Motion to commissioned rank attended he following schools:

Royal Hospital School, Holbrook
4


Newhay Council School, Rochdale
1


Training Ship "Warspite"
1


Toxteth Practical School 
1


Kings College, Mangere, New Zealand 
1


Folkestone Grammar School
1


Esplanade House Private School, Southsea
1


Halesworth Central School, Suffolk
1


Looe Elementary School, Cornwall
1


Paradise Road Secondary School, Plymouth
1


Lancastrian Elementary School, Shrews- Bury
1


Hamilton Crescent Secondary School, Glasgow
1


Logie Elementary School, Angus, Scotland
1


Bridgend Practical School, Glamorganshire
1

Mr. Alexander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of selections made of executive and engineer warrant officers, respectively, for the rank of lieutenant and lieutenant (E) under the new scheme announced four
months ago; their ages on selection; branch of warrant rank; seniority as such; and whether from ship or shore appointment and home or foreign service, respectively?

Mr. Shakespeare: The selection of these officers has not yet been completed, as it has necessitated obtaining reports from Commanders-in-Chief on the various stations throughout the world.

PROPOSED AIR STATION, CRAIL, FIFESHIRE.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement on the proposal to establish a naval air station at Crail, Fife?

Mr. Shakespeare: It has been decided to construct a naval air station for the use of the Fleet Air Arm on a site near Crail in Fifeshire. Negotiations for the purchase of the site are proceeding, and it is hoped to commence work early in September next. About 1,150 workmen are expected to be employed on the work by the various contractors.

AIR AND SUBMARINE TRAINING (CADETS).

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what training in aviation is provided for the naval cadets and midshipmen at Dartmouth College; and are arrangements made for these persons to take periodical flights in aeroplanes, or trips in submarines during the course of their training?

Mr. Shakespeare: Naval cadets undergoing training at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, are given lectures on aviation by the Fleet Air Arm officer on the college staff; opportunity is taken for these cadets to visit submarines when they call at Dartmouth. All naval cadets —both from Dartmouth and special entry —are given some air experience in the aircraft carried in the training cruiser His Majesty's Ship "Vindictive." Midshipmen, while serving in the Fleet, are, whenever possible, given a short air course in an aircraft carrier; where circumstances prevent this, it is carried out at a later stage of the officers' training.

Mr. Day: Do we understand that these cadets do not have a chance of continual periodical flights?

Mr. Shakespeare: Not at all.

Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these cadets are not given air training until comparatively late?

DOCKYARDMEN (MILITARY TRAINING).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give an assurance that craftsmen employed in the dockyards who are called up under the Military Training Act for training in the Royal Naval Special Reserve will not be called upon to undertake at the rate of is. 6d. per days duties similar to those of their civil occupation?

Mr. Shakespeare: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

Sir R, Young: Does that reply mean that these men will not be employed in the dockyards during their period of service?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so.

PENSIONERS (CALLING-UP NOTICE).

Mr. J. H. Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he proposes to deprive of their pensions naval pensioners who ignore the recent calling-up notice on the grounds that a state of emergency does not exist?

Mr. Shakespeare: Any pensioner failing to report when called up under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act would be liable to forfeit his pension, but I can confidently assure the hon. Member that such an instance is not in the least likely to occur.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these pensioners fear that, if they are called up at the present juncture, there is a likelihood that they may lose the employment they are now following? They are quite willing, of course, to observe all their obligations should a state of emergency arise, but there is a widespread opinion that a state of emergency does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Shakespeare: I appreciate that fear, but I think the House will agree that the Government have gone a long way, in the recent legislation, to remove that fear from the man's mind.

EXCESS EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Alexander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Board of Admiralty has been directed to the recent Report of the Committee of Public Accounts; whether he has any statement to make in regard to the excess expenditure on additional accommodation at the Royal Naval Barracks, Chatham, and on the magnetic survey vessel "Research"; and whether it is now proposed to treat as urgent the necessity for improving financial control within the Admiralty?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. I think it would be unusual for me to make any statement on the two specific matters referred to in the question before these have formed the subject of comment in the Treasury Minute on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and the Minute has been considered by that Committee. As stated in the Treasury Minute of 20th December last, a committee, over which I am presiding, is engaged upon examining the Admiralty arrangements for financial control in the light of the observations of the Public Accounts Committee. My committee has recently consulted representatives of the Treasury, and I hope that its report will be completed within a very short period.

Mr. Alexander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great uneasiness about this financial control in the case of the Admiralty; and is it not very strange that the committee over which he is presiding have not consulted the Treasury at all between last December and a few weeks ago? What is the reason for that great delay?

Mr. Shakespeare: The problem required a good deal of investigation, and on three occasions something intervened — the mobilisation, all the preparations in connection with the Military Training Bill, and the submarine loss. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the report will be completed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Alexander: May I ask for an immediate assurance that there will be no further case of failure to consult the Treasury about heavy excess expenditure such as occurred in the case of the"Research," which seems to have been a very grave omission?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is one of the points which arise out of our inquiry, and I hope that a case like that will not occur again.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the case of the "Research," in which the estimates were enormously exceeded without consultation with the Treasury, been before the committee over which the hon. Gentleman tells us he is presiding?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes; we have gone with very great care into each of the cases mentioned by the Public Accounts Committee. Our report goes to the Treasury, and the Treasury, I presume, will make their comments to the Public Accounts Committee upon our report.

TRAWLERS (PURCHASE).

Mr. Garro Jones: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement concerning the purchase of 84 modern trawlers from the existing fleet and in particular whether he will consult with the other Ministers concerned to minimise any adverse effect of this transaction upon employment, upon fish supplies to the public and upon any particular section of the fishing industry?

Mr. Shakespeare: It has been decided to purchase additional trawlers to be converted for use with the Royal Navy; the number will probably be about 80. Full consultation has taken place with the Trawler Owners Federation and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been informed of the reasons for this purchase. The hon. Member can rest assured that the interests of all sections of the industry have been borne in mind.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied in existing circumstances with the arrangements for the manning of these vessels on naval service?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am not in a position yet to make a statement on that point, as the manning of these vessels will require special arrangements, but I will do so at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Alexander: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this purchase is the purchase which he foreshadowed in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, and is it intended in order to bring our mine-sweeping power up to war standard?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir, I think in the Debate on the Navy Estimates I did state that in an emergency the Admiralty would take up a number of trawlers. These particular trawlers are not for mine-sweeping but for anti-submarine work, and my Noble Friend and the Board of Admiralty thought that, in view of the fact that this does greatly enhance our preparedness, it would be advisable to acquire and convert these trawlers now.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the Admiralty consider allowing the men who are at present serving on these ships to continue serving in them when they are taken over by the Admiralty?

Mr. Shakespeare: While we shall try to do that as far as possible, there is this reservation, that the men we want to employ in the first place are those who have been trained in the patrol service as regards anti-submarine work.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Does the hon. Member not consider that these men who have been trained in this work should have special consideration, particularly as they have special knowledge of the use of trawlers?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, that is so, and we shall try to do that as far as possible, but I would point out that it may not be always possible. In so far as we are taking up these trawlers I imagine that those men who may not be required will find it easy to get employment elsewhere.

Mr. Windsor: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the statement that at least 500 people will be thrown out of work in Hull and Grimsby, and can he say what efforts the, Government are making to find other employment for them?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that follows at all. If the hon. Member would like to consult me on this question I will gladly go into it with him.

Mr. Windsor: Is the hon. Member aware that a number of these trawlerowners, in agreement with the trades unions concerned, have already indicated that 500 men will be thrown out of work?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think that follows at all.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any intention of purchasing any drifters for naval purposes?

Mr. Shakespeare: Not till the emergency arises.

Mr. Buchanan: Has the hon. Member considered that new trawlers might have been built in a comparatively short time in some of the yards which are shut up, or which are partially employed, and would not new boats be much better for this work?

Mr. Shakespeare: In all these problems we try to strike a balance. We have a number of trawlers being built, and these trawlers are being converted now so that they may be immediately available.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Admiralty considered building an equivalent number of trawlers in order that these trawlers may be returned as soon as possible?

GERMAN WARSHIPS (SALVAGE OPERATIONS, SCAPA FLOW).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the salvage operations for raising the late German fleet at Scapa Flow are to be continued; how long these operations have been in progress; what ships or property have been recovered; what is the estimated value of such ships and property; and what is the estimated cost of the salvage operations to date?

Mr. Shakespeare: The salvage operations on the German ships at Scapa Flow have been in progress since 1923. The vessels in question were sold outright to various firms, who have conducted salvage operations at their own risk and expense. I have no information as to the value of the ships raised, or the cost of the salvage operations carried out, nor whether further attempts at salvage are intended.

Mr. McEntee: If this is done at the expense of the contractor, what happens to the ships when they are brought up?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is not our business, but I presume he sells them for scrap.

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand that these ships belong to the people who have raised them, and not to the Government?

Mr. Shakespeare: We sold them outright.

Mr. Macquisten: Could not these people raise the "Thetis" without the slightest difficulty, seeing that they have raised these battleships without accident of any kind?

Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. Gentleman say for what price they were actually sold?

Mr. Shakespeare: They were sold, I think, for about £24,000 at the end of the War.

GAMBIA AND SIERRA LEONE (EXPORTS).

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what active steps he has taken or is taking to develop the export of agricultural produce from Gambia and Sierra Leone to foreign countries and to the British Empire?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Special attention has been paid to the improvement of the quality of export produce from these territories by the institution of produce inspection, which now applies to groundnuts, palm kernels, beeswax and hides and skins in the Gambia, and to palm kernels, palm oil, beeswax, and ginger in Sierra Leone. Attention is also being given to the encouragement of the extension of production for export of hides and skins in the Gambia and of palm kernels, palm oil, piassava, kola, ginger, and hides and skins in Sierra Leone. In the latter Colony much attention is also being paid to the development of rice production, primarily to meet internal needs but also with a view to the ultimate development of an export trade.

BRITISH GUIANA (REFUGEES).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the prospective number of refugees to be settled in British Guiana, and the pro-spective date of the beginning of the same?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The tentative proposals under consideration by the refugee organisations in this country and in the United States contemplate an experimental settlement of from 250 to 500 persons, to be started with the despatch of a pioneer party in the autumn of this year. The ultimate number to be settled under the proposals would depend on the results of the experimental settlement, and of the further inquiries which the proposals contemplate into the agricultural and industrial possibilities of the interior.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that the report with regard to British Guiana indicated that experimental settlements would be made of 5,000 persons and upwards, is it not intended to carry the matter out on a larger scale?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a matter for decision by the refugee authorities. They are considering very carefully the possibility of an experiment on the scale suggested in the report, and seem likely to come to the conclusion which I have indicated in reply to the question.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Would it not cost more to send one man to this district than to send 10 to Palestine?

Sir Richard Acland: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea of the number of people who will form the pioneer party? Is it tens, or hundreds?

Mr. MacDonald: The matter is still under consideration by the refugee authorities, and I would prefer not to give any answer until they have reached a final conclusion on the matter, which I hope will be the case in the very near future.

SEYCHELLES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolutions from the Seychelles Taxpayers' Association, a body representative of all classes in this colony excepting Government officials, requesting an amendment to the constitution whereby adequate popular representation of the inhabitants and a reduction in the excessive costs of the administration may be secured; and what action he proposes in the matter?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have seen the resolutions to which the hon. Member refers and propose to discuss the various matters dealt with in the resolutions with the Governor, who is now home on leave.

Mr. Adams: Can the House be advised of the results of these discussions if I put another question down?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will put another question down, I will give him such information as I can from time to time, but I do not anticipate that I shall be able to give him any further information next week.

WEST INDIES (CIVIL SERVICE).

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has inquired into the position of establishing Whitley Council machinery in the West Indian Civil Service; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am in sympathy with the principle of consultation with recognised associations of Colonial civil servants, and am considering whether any further developments regarding this are feasible and desirable in the West Indies.

Mr. Jagger: If I put down another question, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me a reply?

Mr. MacDonald: When I have any further information.

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent existing in the Trinidad Civil Service because of the rise of approximately 15 per cent. in the cost of living; of the two promises made by the Governor that the Civil Service would be reorganised; that in this reorganisation the question of the cost of living and other matters would be dealt with; and when it is expected that particulars of the pro posed reorganisation will be furnished to the Civil Service Association?

Mr. MacDonald: The Government of Trinidad have had under consideration the revision of conditions of service and the regrading of salaries of civil servants in the Colony. I understand that comprehensive proposals on the matter will be introduced in the Legislative Council when it reassembles.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement regarding the institution of a standing Parliamentary Commit tee for Colonial Affairs?

The Prime Minister: I am not at the moment in a position to make a statement, but I expect to be able to do so before the end of the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD DEFENCE.

FLOUR (STORAGE).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the response of bakers to the special offer in connection with the storage of flour?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The scheme to which the hon. Member refers has met with an excellent response, and has led to a substantial increase of the stocks of flour held by bakers. One of the advantages of the scheme is that the stocks are widely dispersed and are maintained close to the point of consumption. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the bakers and their trade organisation for their co-operation. I may add that the scheme is being extended to flour millers and flour importers.

Mr. De la Bére: Was not this very largely a device to enable the Millers' Mutual Association to unload flour son to these unsuspecting bakers at an uneconomic price? Will my right hon. Friend think very deeply before he replies?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is "No, Sir."

Mr. De la Bére: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I never accept "No"?

BAKING CAPACITY.

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, since the absorption of bakery concerns by the milling combines direct or by holding companies controlled by the milling combines is undermining the independence of bakers in all districts in this country, which it is essential to safeguard in connection with Food Defence Plans, he will
introduce legislation to defend the independent bakers against the encroachment caused by this practice?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My information does not confirm the premises of my hon. Friend's question, and I see no need to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested. I am satisfied that there is sufficient baking capacity to meet the needs of the country in time of emergency.

Mr. De la Bére: Is my right hon. Friend aware that evasion and stonewalling are no good against me? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Millers' Mutual Association is a public menace, and that a public inquiry must be held?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of all that.

WHEAT RESERVES.

Mr. De la Bére: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in connection with the substantial additions which have recently been made to the Government's wheat reserves, preference has been given to the purchase of Canadian and Australian wheats; and whether he will, as far as possible, en-deavour to give preference to wheat from the Dominions in purchasing emergency supplies in future?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. De la Bére: But what about the American Kansas wheat? Is that not delivered here free of import duty, and is there not a profit of 5s. on the American subsidy, which enables the Millers' Mutual Association once again to make an additional profit on the standard price of flour? Will my right hon. Friend give this really deep thought?

Mr. Morrison: I will give it thought when I have an opportunity of considering it. Perhaps, in order to enable me to do so, my hon. Friend will put the question on the Paper.

Mr. De la Bére: Is there no one in the Government who has the courage to stand up to the scandal of the milling combines?

ARMAMENT CONTRACTS, CANADA.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancasterwhether, as a result of the Bren gun investigation in Canada, there has been any curtailment of orders for munitions, armaments, or military supplies placed in Canada by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am advised that the answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

IMMIGRATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent in numbers during each of the last three years and for the last three months of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, and what steps are being taken to prevent it?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have not these figures available, but am asking the High Commissioner for a report. The land frontiers of Palestine are closely patrolled, with a view to preventing unauthorised entry by Arabs or other persons.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at least the same energy will be shown in preventing illegal Arab immigration into Palestine as in preventing illegal Jewish immigration?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Crossley: Does the answer not prove conclusively that the Arabs of Palestine are a separate and distinct people from the Arabs of other countries?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the matter of immigration into Palestine, he will consider making a concession on behalf of the elderly dependants of already established Jewish immigrants from the countries of persecution, and will allow such dependants to be brought in as an addition both to the proposed ordinary quota and to the proposed special category for refugees, in view of the fact that these elderly dependants can neither add to the future Jewish population nor compete in the economic field, and will be in no way a burden on the financial resources of the State nor a military menace to the Arab population?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider a modification of the impending suspension of immigration of


Jews into Palestine in the case of aged parents or near relatives of persons already settled there, who will undertake full responsibility for them?

Mr. MacDonald: I cannot contemplate any modification of the policy regarding immigration set forth in the White Paper and in my recent statement concerning the next six-monthly period.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Member aware that, at present Jewish colonists are often faced with the cruel choice of whether to bring in aged parents, faced with destitution and misery, or young adults, who would be of some economic value to the colony; and would not my suggestion do something to conciliate world opinion?

Mr. MacDonald: All those considerations, and many others, were taken carefully into account before we decided on this policy.

Mr. T. Williams: As the suggestion in the question does not in any way vitiate the general immigration policy, could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his policy for the first year in regard to aged people, who could not be a burden on the Palestinian Arabs?

Mr. Pickthorn: Does not the hon. Lady's supplementary question show that such a concession would affect the general immigration policy?

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly.

Mr. Dalton: On a point of Order. Would it not be proper for the Minister now to answer the question of my hon. Friend, which he would have answered but for the supplementary of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)?

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to his doing so.

Mr. MacDonald: The suggestion which was made would involve a modification of the policy which had been decided on, and I said in my original answer that I could not contemplate any such modification.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Would the point made by the hon. Lady not be best met if the organisation concerned would stop illegal immigration?

Mr. T. Williams: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that the official organisation, which is part and parcel of the Mandate system, is in any way responsible for illegal immigration?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not understand what the hon. and gallant Member said.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the agreement made, with the approval of the Home Office, by the Agricultural Subcommittee of the Co-ordinating Committee on Jewish Refugees, on which is represented the National Fanners' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Agricultural Workers' Union, for the training in this country of 1,000 German refugees at agricultural institutes and on English farms with individual owners, for emigration to Pales-time within one year, 200 of such emigrants to leave in October, 200 in November, and the remainder in December, which arrangements were made with his knowledge and approval, his order to stop all immigration into Palestine for the period from 1st October will apply to these men?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I would add that the plan to which the hon. Member refers was not made with my knowledge or approval. I was informed about it by those responsible after it had been made, and I gave no undertaking that immigration certificates for Palestine would be available for the persons concerned.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the effect of this policy so far as English agricultural labourers are concerned, and of the fact that it will represent a breach of faith all round if this policy is pursued, will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a special case?

Mr. MacDonald: If I treat one case as a special case, I shall have to treat a great many as special cases. This is the result not of our policy, but of enormous illegal immigration into Palestine.

BRITISH SOLDIERS AND OFFICIALS (CASUALTIES).

Mr. Lambert: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of


British soldiers and officials that have been killed and wounded during the past seven years in Palestine?

Mr. M. MacDonald: During the past seven years the number of Army and Air Force casualties have been 113 killed and 377 wounded. During the same period 28 British officials, including police, were killed and 79 wounded.

Mr. Lambert: Is that not a heavy British sacrifice in order to settle the Jews in Palestine?

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the number of deaths, either through accidents or ill health, among British soldiers who have been sent to India during that period?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Mander: How many Jews were killed fighting for us in the Great War?

REFUGEES (COASTAL PATROL).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the size and number of ships of the British coastal fleet engaged off the coast of Palestine in preventing Jewish refugees from landing; how many ships have landed refugees in the last month; and to what extent arrangements are contemplated for transferring them to Cyprus or elsewhere?

Mr. M. MacDonald: One division of destroyers and five Government motor launches are engaged in this patrol service. With regard to the second part of the question, I am making inquiry of the High Commissioner. With regard to the third part, I cannot add to the general statement which I made in the course of the Debate on 20th July.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where he expects the ships to go when the Jewish refugees are successfully driven off by the British fleet from their national home in Palestine?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member will recollect that what I said in my statement in the course of the Debate was that the situation is one in which these ships are usually captured by our patrols and taken to Palestine.

Mr. Alexander: Do I understand that a whole flotilla of destroyers is engaged in this work?

Mr. MacDonald: One division.

Mr. Alexander: What is a division?

WEST AFRICA (COCOA COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the Cocoa Commission Report arising out of the West African dispute?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have now received the recommendations of the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria on the Cocoa Commission Report, and I have them under consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: How soon may we expect from the Government a statement on their policy in the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: I have undertaken to consult interests in this country before I make that statement. I shall undertake that consultation at the earliest possible moment.

COLONIES (GRANTS AND LOANS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of financial grants made to Colonial Governments in any form during 1913, 1923, 1933, and 1938?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the reply:

The net expenditure in the years mentioned from the Votes which are now comprised in the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote was as follows:



£


1913
526,885


1923
13,328,250


1933
548,722


1938
4,380,000 (estimated).

The expenditure in 1923 includes £6,614,905 on defence services in the Middle East and £3,750,000 in respect of a financial settlement with the British

South Africa Company, which can perhaps hardly be classed as grants made to Colonial Governments.

In addition, in the years 1933 and 1938 the net expenditure from the Colonial Development Fund was £358,336 and £381,184 respectively.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of loans outstanding to Colonial Governments to the last convenient date; and whether any and, if so, what amount of interest is in arrear?

Mr. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the question, the figures of un-repaid advances by the United Kingdom at 31st March, 1938, were £10,892,685 exclusive of outstanding loans from the Colonial Development Fund of £1,205,068. No arrears of interest are outstanding on the loans from the Colonial Development Fund. As regards the amount of interest outstanding in the case of the unrepaid advances, the position is somewhat complicated, and I would refer the hon. Member to pages 86-88 of the latest edition of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the punctilious financial rectitude which the right hon. Gentleman imposes on the Colonies, is it still the policy of the Government that they should be self-supporting as between revenue and expenditure within each Colony, irrespective of the position of the Colonial Empire?

Mr. MacDonald: That is a very different question, and I could not reply within the bounds of a Parliamentary answer.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any estimate as to what percentage of the capital value of the Colonies is represented by this £10,000,000?

Mr. MacDonald: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What is the rate of interest charged upon these loans?

Mr. MacDonald: If my hon. Friend will look up the publications to which I have referred, he will see the rates of interest.

Mr. Cartland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the Crown Colonies have received no grant in aid from the Imperial Exchequer during the last three years?

Mr. MacDonald: As the answer contains a long list of territories I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

No provision was made for grants or loans in aid to the following Colonial Dependencies in the Estimates of the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote for the years 1937–38, 1938–39 and 1939–40 (including the Supplementary Estimate of 7th July, 1939 (Cmd. No. 147 of 1939):Aden Colony, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Ceylon, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Federated Malay States, Gibraltar, Grenada, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Mauritius, North Borneo, St. Helena, St. Vincent, Sarawak, Seychelles, Straits Settlements, Trinidad and Zanzibar.

All the above dependencies have, however, with the exception of Gibraltar and Sarawak, been granted during the three years in question assistance of varying amounts in the form of grants and/or loans from the Colonial Development Fund.

CYPRUS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the terms of the exclusive licences granted by the Governor of Cyprus to certain private companies to export tobacco and wines to the United Kingdom; and what effect these monopolies have had upon the interests of the Colony?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the terms of the licences are long I propose to place copies of them in the Library of the House. Broadly, in the case of wines, the system of marketing adopted has led to higher prices being paid to growers for grapes and to an increase in exports of wines and grape juice to the United Kingdom from nil in 1926, the year before the licence was granted, to 650,000 gallons in 1938. In addition, a scientific winery has been built and quality improved up to a standard at which Cyprus wines,


hitherto used solely for blending purposes, are being sold to an increasing extent under their own name. In the case of tobacco, the licences have succeeded, by rigorous supervision of quality and by careful marketing, in creating a demand within the very limited United Kingdom market for a type of Turkish cigarettes manufactured from Cyprus leaf.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the people of Cyprus resent the imputation cast on them that signatures to the recent petition were obtained improperly and by misrepresentation, and whether he will receive a small deputation of well-known Cypriots at present in London who desire to explain the position to him and make their protest personally?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to some of the methods used by those connected with the recent circulation of petitions in Cyprus, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in answer to questions on 5th July. If those concerned wish to make representations to me on the matter they should do so in the normal manner through the Acting Governor, and I shall readily consider them. In the circumstances, I do not think that a useful purpose would be served by my receiving a deputation in London.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be well to receive a deputation from the many Cypriots of different points of view in London now, and is not he aware that it would encourage them to make statements to him so that he might get to know at first hand, apart from the official point of view, the reactions to activities in the Island?

Mr. MacDonald: I am never reluctant to see citizens who come from the Colonies but this question is concerned with certain quite recent events in Cyprus, and I am not certain that Cypriot residents in London would necessarily be those best calculated to make representations on this matter. What I am suggesting is for authoritative representations from those concerned in the Island through the normal channels, and I will

readily consider anything they may represent.

Mr. Mathers: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I mean those people who are here visiting London and who are always, apart from a very brief period, resident in Cyprus and arc in a position quite definitely to make representations on the matter.

Captain Alan Graham: Is it not the fact that the chief of these Cypriot visitors to London at the moment was one of the originators of the petition, and one who, in the riots of 1931, openly deserted the British Government in a most offensive fashion and should then have been deprived of his British decoration?

Mr. Benn: Will Government officials in Cyprus prohibit the Press from publishing any account of these questions and answers?

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of signatures obtained to the recent Cyprus petition asking for a measure of self-government and the number which the officials of the Colony state have been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud?

Mr. MacDonald: I have not the information asked for, but would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on 20th July.

Mr. Mathers: As the right hon. Gentleman has taken a decision with regard to this matter and now appears to say he is not informed of the position, on what basis did he take his decision?

Mr. MacDonald: The decision was taken by the authorities in the Island, and I have taken steps to get from the authorities in the Island the information which the hon. Member requires.

COLONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPERIAL EXCHEQUER.

Captain A. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Exchequer receives any financial contribution, other than those offered voluntarily for defence purposes,


from any Crown Colony; and, if so, from which Colony, and for what purpose?

Mr. M. MacDonald: With the permission of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will circulate in the Official Report a statement showing the contributions made by Colonial Governments to the Imperial Exchequer. Apart from the contributions made for the specific purposes mentioned in the statement and certain voluntary contributions towards defence the Imperial Exchequer receives no contributions from Colonial funds.

Following is the statement:

As indicated in Sub-head 2 of Head L of Vote I of the Army Estimates, contributions towards the cost of Imperial Defence are made by the Governments of certain Colonies in which Imperial garrisons are stationed. The amounts estimated to be received during the current year are as follow:



£


Bermuda
3,500


Jamaica
10,000


*Cyprus
14,000


Mauritius 
59,000


Ceylon
216,000


Straits Settlement
700,000


Hong Kong
379,000

* The reason for the contribution made by the Government of Cyprus is explained in the Note to Sub-head A I of the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote (Class II, Vote 8).

As indicated in Sub-head I of Head K of Vote 8 of the Air Estimates a number of Colonial Governments contribute towards the cost of the Empire air services. These contributions are as follow:



£


Ceylon
1,000


Fiji 
100


Hong Kong
17,000


Kenya 
9,000


Mauritius 
400


North Borneo
200


Northern Rhodesia
2,000


Nyasaland
2,000


Sarawak
200


Seychelles
50


Straits Settlements and Malay States
20,000


Tanganyika
6,000


Uganda 
6,000


Zanzibar
500

In addition, as indicated in Sub-head F of the Vote for Colonial and Middle Eastern services, it is estimated that the sum of £1,500 will be received from Colonial Governments during the current year in respect of contributions by Colonial Governments towards the cost of testing and marketing Colonial timbers and towards the cost of certain schemes met in the first instance from the funds of the Colonial Empire Marketing Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC-LIGHT SIGNALS.

Captain Sir William Brass: asked the Minister of Transport what would be the approximate cost of adding to an existing traffic-light signal, a special signal with the three colours placed in a suitable position for the guidance of foot passengers, in order to indicate when they should or should not attempt to cross the road?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): The total cost of fitting an additional three-light signal of a normal pattern to an existing traffic signal depends so much on the circumstances of each case that it is difficult to give any general estimate. I understand that the cost of an additional three-light signal of a normal pattern would be about £8 10s., but to this must be added the cost of fitting to the signal head and also of making the necessary alterations to the cables. If, as in many cases, the whole junction would have to be recabled, the cost would be very considerable.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that in all new traffic-light signals a third light should be added for the safety of pedestrians?

Captain Wallace: I shall be glad to consider that.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a circular to local authorities asking them to experiment with the fitting of some traffic- light signals of a special kind with the three colours for the guidance of foot passengers who are endangered when crossing the road by being unable to see when the traffic lights are in their favour?

Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. I propose to issue to highway authorities a circular


calling attention to the desirability of providing additional three-light signal faces of the normal pattern on traffic-light signals wherever these are practicable and warranted.

Sir W. Brass: asked the Minister of Transport whether at the traffic-light controls in the Metropolitan area any check is ever made of the duration of the green and red periods with the normal traffic flow at different times of the day and night and on Sundays in order that unnecessary delays when the traffic is light can be avoided at minor crossings?

Captain Wallace: The fact that the great majority of the traffic control signals in the Metropolitan area are vehicle-actuated ensures that unnecessary delays are avoided when traffic is light along the side streets. Periodical checks are, however, made of the timing of all installations and these are taken at various times of the day and night. Checks on Sundays are not considered necessary.

Sir W. Brass: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is a very considerable delay on Sundays, and would he consider installing the system adopted in France whereby the yellow amber light is blinked at cross roads so as to give a warning signal when the rest of the lights are turned out?

Captain Wallace: If my hon. and gallant Friend suggests that that should be done on Sundays only, I think that it would be impracticable.

RAILWAY FOOTBRIDGE, GLYNCORRWG.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to get the Great Western Railway Company to proceed with the work of erecting the station footbridge over the railway, which is jointly owned by the Glyncorrwg Urban District Council and the Great Western Railway Company, which is a source of public danger and a great public inconvenience?

Captain Wallace: I understand that the heads of the necessary agreement between the urban district council and the railway company for the reconstruction of the footbridge are now under discussion, and that the work will be put in hand as soon as possible.

FACILITIES, GLASGOW—INNELLAN.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the further representations on the lack of transport facilities between Glasgow and Innellan; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

Captain Wallace: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company inform me that except on Saturdays a train leaves Glasgow (Central) at 6.45 p.m. giving a connection with a steamer leaving Gourock at 7.40 p.m. and arriving at Innellan at 8.20 p.m. On Saturdays a train leaves Glasgow (Central) at 7 p.m. connecting with a steamer leaving Wemyss Bay at 8.10 p.m. and arriving at Innellan at 9.25 p.m. There is also an earlier train on all weekdays from Glasgow (Central) at 6.10 p.m. arriving at Gourock at 6.59 p.m. (6.56 p.m. on Saturdays), but without a connection to Innellan. I am still in communication with the company on the further points brought to my notice by the hon. and learned Member, and I will let him know the result as soon as possible.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal and other accidents that have occurred to persons boarding or alighting from stationary tramcars during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and will he consider introducing legislation or making further regulations prohibiting either mechanically-propelled or horse-drawn vehicles from passing on the near-side of stationary tramcars whilst passengers are boarding or alighting?

Captain Wallace: For the country as a whole the latest available figures for fatal accidents to persons boarding or alighting from stationary tramcars are those for 1933 and 1935 which were given to the hon. Member on 15th July, 1936. When the last detailed analysis of fatal and non-fatal road accidents was made for the year ending 31st March, 1937, it was not deemed necessary to analyse the figures of accidents to persons boarding or


alighting from vehicles according to the type of vehicle. The particulars for which the hon. Member asks are, therefore, not available. I do not think that any amendment of the law in the sense proposed by the hon. Member is necessary. Paragraph 27 of the Highway Code gives clear instructions on the subject of passing stationary tramcars on the nearside, and the existing law provides severe penalties where the practice referred to is a cause of danger.

Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that regulations on these lines would minimise fatal and other accidents?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir; if I agreed with that view I should have given a different answer to the hon. Member's question.

Systems.
Number of Persons.
Average per million passenger vehicle miles run.


Killed.
Injured.
Killed.
Injured.


Tramcars
…
…
…
…
17
4,672
.26
70.9


 Trolley Omnibuses
…
…
31
3,7553
.68
82· 4


Motor Omnibuses:






Central Area Omnibuses
…
67
11,002
.29
47·9


Coaches
…
…
…
11
524
.39
1.7


Country Omnibuses
 …
…
7
805
.24
2.3


Total
…
…
133
20,756
.33
52· 2

The figures of injured include all cases reported, however trivial.

The board add that the relatively high figure for trolley omnibuses is incidental to their introduction and that this figure diminishes with experience as is already apparent from those routes where trolley omnibuses were first introduced.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds he has decided not to hold an inquiry into the accident near Lancaster on 9th July involving a motor coach and the death through burning of five passengers; whether a contributing cause of the fire resulting from the accident was the cotton carried by the lorry into which the motor coach crashed; whether it is in the public interest that cotton should be carried by lorry rather than by rail; whether the rear lighting of motor lorries is adequate and was so in this case; whether the time

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport how many persons have been killed, and how many injured, in road accidents involving, respectively, tram-cars, trolley omnibuses and motor omnibuses per 1,000,000 passenger miles run by the London Passenger Transport Board for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1938?

Captain Wallace: As the answer contains a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that the numbers of persons killed and injured in road accidents involving, respectively, their tram-cars, trolley omnibuses and motor omnibuses, during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1938, were as shown below:

schedule of the coach was in order; and, in view of the necessity of elucidating these and other facts, will he reconsider his decision?

Captain Wallace: I obtained a report on this regrettable accident immediately after it occurred, and in my opinion a Public Inquiry into it would serve no useful purpose. There is always the possibility of legal proceedings arising out of an accident of this kind, and it would therefore not be proper for me to make any statement as to its causes. In any case it would not be practicable to prohibit the carrying of cotton by road.

ROAD FACILITIES, WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport what amount of assistance he is prepared to offer towards the cost of reconstruction of the main road in Bernaray Island, Harris?

Captain Wallace: The position remains as stated in the answer given to the hon. Member's question on the same subject on 22nd March, 1939.

Mr. MacMillan: May I ask whether the county council is putting the road on the classified list; and, if so, will he then make any grants?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question on the Paper.

STORNOWAY STEAMER SERVICE.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement regarding the new steamer to be put on the Stornoway service by Messrs. MacBrayne's, with details about accommodation for passengers and crew, service speed minimum, stock and goods accommodation, etc.; and the date at which it is likely to begin service?

Captain Wallace: I am informed by Messrs. MacBrayne that the plans of the new steamer for the Stornoway Service are still under consideration but will be submitted to me as soon as possible. By the terms of their contract Messrs. MacBrayne are required to provide the new vessel for this service before the end of next year.

ROAD WORKS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will urge upon Highland county councils the advisability, in view of the high level of local unemployment in some areas, and in view of the very poor condition of second-class and unclassified and parish roads, that they prepare plans to undertake the reconstruction of these roads while all the plant for the first-class road schemes is still in these areas and available at the completion of these main schemes, and so effect economies in transport of plant and material, thus reducing the cost of certain new schemes especially in the Outer Islands; and whether he will be prepared to advance financial aid for the period of such reconstruction at low charges?

Captain Wallace: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. I attach great importance to the principle that contracts for road works

should be publicly advertised for competitive tenders; and it cannot be assumed that any particular contract will go to a firm which happens to have plant employed on other road schemes in the locality. Moreover, whether particular works can be put in hand at any given time must be judged in relation to the financial resources then available both locally and nationally. It does not follow that because certain improvement works are being carried out in any district therefore other unrelated works should be put in hand at the same time or immediately afterwards. Whether a grant can be made towards any particular scheme of improvement submitted by a highway authority must always be considered on its merits in relation to the demands for other purposes.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a certain amount of co-ordination in the various transport schemes is highly desirable? Does he not agree also that great savings could be made by fitting these schemes into each other from year to year and in plant transport? Is it nescessary to restrict planning to this year to year method on isolated schemes?

Captain Wallace: I do not think that these considerations override those stated in my answer.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be highly advisable to establish system and co-ordination in the transport system in the Highlands and Islands which is absolutely lacking to-day?

Captain Wallace: I think we have done a great deal to help transport there.

Mr. MacMillan: You certainly have not done much about parish and local roads, so far.

Mr. Macquisten: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the sea is a highway, that the sea is free, and that transport by sea ought to be free?

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DOWNHAM MARKET.

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make any statements on the inquiry which he instituted on the recent railway accident near Downham Market?

Captain Wallace: The report of the Chief Inspecting Officer who held the inquiry into this railway accident is not yet completed, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any statement on the matter. In any case, criminal proceedings are being instituted against the lorry driver concerned in this accident, and until such proceedings are concluded it would not be proper for me to make public the findings of the Chief Inspecting Officer.

Mr. Maxwell: When the inquiry is over and the criminal proceedings are completed, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider having a general inquiry into the whole question of level crossings, particularly pedestrian crossings?

Captain Wallace: That is a much wider question.

Mr. De Chair: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when the report will be ready?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir.

RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that when young men surrender their season and period rail tickets on account of being called up for military training they have returned to them a lesser proportion of the amount originally paid; and whether he will consult with the railway companies with a view to rectifying this grievance?

Captain Wallace: I have consulted the railway companies on the question of allowances in respect of non-user of season tickets. They point out that the existing regulations under which they make these allowances are designed to put the season ticket holder, who surrenders his ticket, in at least as good a position as if he had taken out a ticket or tickets for the actual period of user.

GLENSHEE BRIDGE.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to conversations between the Perth and Kinross County Council and the national transport authorities involving consideration of a scheme for the demolition of the Spittal of Glenshee Bridge and the erection of a new bridge on the site of the old one; if he is aware that the old bridge

has been scheduled as an ancient monument and that its destruction would be deeply resented in Scotland; and whether he will agree that further action should be postponed pending further consideration of the practicability and cost of repairing the old bridge?

Captain Wallace: As I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman on 20th June last the approval of the First Commissioner of Works, who is responsible for ancient monuments, has not been given to the demolition of Glenshee Bridge. Alternative proposals for the improvement of the road in this locality are under review; and before any decision is reached, regard will be had to all the relevant considerations.

LONDON BUS EMPLOYES' FRIENDLY SOCIETY.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the members of the London Passenger Transport Friendly Society in view of the proposal that the benefits shall be reduced, as this proposal is in conflict with the undertaking that the benefits to which the employés of the London General Omnibus Company were entitled would be guaranteed by the London Passenger Transport Board?

Captain Wallace: I assume that the society to which the hon. Member refers is the London General Omnibus Company Employés' Friendly Society. I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that this is a voluntary society organised and administered by certain members of the staff for their own benefit and registered under the Friendly Societies Act. The board do not participate in its management nor have they, or their predecessors, the London General Omnibus Company, contributed to its funds. I am further informed that no undertaking has been given either by the London General Omnibus Company or by the board that the benefits paid by the society would be guaranteed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF.

Commander Locker-Lampson: On a point of Order. I have a question on the


Order Paper, Question 96, which has not been reached. May I ask whether by postponing it now I can have it answered to-morrow in the time available for questions? It concerns the servants of this House, and we are anxious to help them in any emergency.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member will, no doubt, receive a written reply.

Mr. Harvey: Is there any opportunity, Mr. Speaker, by which Members of the House generally, who are deeply concerned in this matter, may express their views, if the question is not answered orally?

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that when questions are not answered they may be withdrawn and put down for another day? I have done it scores of times.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give us an opportunity of discussing this question of the servants of this House and their conditions? The servants are our friends. Am I not entitled to ask the Prime Minister that question?

Mr. Speaker: Not now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business for to-day and also for Friday?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain the business up to and including the fifth Order on the Paper. I need not stress the importance and urgency of the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Bill which has been treated by the House as a non-party measure. I announced last week that the Government would ask the House to take the remaining stages to-day so that the Bill could go to another place. I hope that it will be possible for us to finish the Bill tonight, but if it is felt as the evening proceeds that the report and Third Reading should be deferred until after the Vote of Censure to-morrow, I recognise that it would be unreasonable for me to press the House to dispose of the Bill to-night. I think we must see how we get on in

Committee, and I would suggest that as the evening proceeds the usual channels should consult together.
On Friday we shall consider Supplementary Estimates in Committee for the Home Office, Foreign Office and Diplomatic and Consular Services in so far as they relate to the preparation of plans for a Ministry of Information and Foreign Publicity. Any other outstanding Business will also be taken.

Mr. Benn: While no one desires to prevent appropriate powers being given to the Government in connection with these outrages, the Prime Minister will have noticed that the Government themselves have put on the Order Paper for the first time to-day Amendments which must be considered carefully, and that, therefore, a Report stage will be necessary?

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Mr. Locker-Lampson: As we have spent a whole night discussing our own affairs could not a small portion of our time be reserved to discuss the conditions of the servants in the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member can raise that question on the Motion for the Adjournment or any night after Eleven o'Clock.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not too late to discuss that question after Eleven o'Clock?

Mr. Locker-Lampson: Would it not be possible to appoint half a dozen hon. Members to go into this question?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: In view of the reported serious explosion this afternoon, can the Prime Minister say whether it is true, and, if it is true, is it not desirable that the Bill to deal with this kind of outrage should be passed into law at once?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there was an explosion at King's Cross Station this afternoon. I have not received sufficient information to say how serious it was, but I am told that a number of people have been hurt. What effect it will have on the consideration of the Bill I will leave to hon. Members themselves.

Viscountess Astor: We might all be blown up.

Mr. Locker-Lampson: Do I understand that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House we shall be allowed to discuss the question of the conditions of the servants of this House?

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 131.

Division No. 284.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evorard, Sir William Lindsay
Markham, S. F.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fildes, Sir H.
Marsden, Commander A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Findlay, Sir E
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Furness, s. N.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Ll.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Assheton, R.
Gledhill, G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Goldie, N. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirra!)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Bailer, A. Beverley
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Beamish, Rear Admiral T. P. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Beechman, N. A.
Guinness, T. L. E, B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hambro, A. V.
Patrick, C. M.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Peal, C. U.


Brabner, R. A.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's,)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M,


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Haneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pilkington, R.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hen. Sir S.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Radford, E. A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rankin, Sir R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cary, R. A.
Hume. Sir G. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hunloke, H. P.
Riekards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Marioneth)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Kellett, Major E. O.
Rowlands. G.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, Colonel C. l. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R,


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Croft. Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lees-Jones, J.
Scott, Lord William


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lindsay. K. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


De Chair, S. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


De la Bert, R.
Little, J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Denman, Hon. R. D,
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Denville, Alfred
Locker-Lampson, Comdr, O. S.
Snadden, W. MoN.


Dodd, J. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Somerset, T.


Donner, P. W.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Dugdale, Captain D. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Duggan, H. J.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duncan, J. A. L.
MeCorquodale, M. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dunglass, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Storey, S.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McKie, J. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Edge, Sir W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Sutcliffe, H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Manningham-Butter, Sir M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.




Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsond)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Thomas, J. P. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wise, A. R.


Thornton, Sir J. D. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Marquess of
Wells, Sir Sydney
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Touohe, G. C.
Whitaley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wickham, LI.-Col. E. T. R.



Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Munro.




NOES


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. (Cornsell)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Grenfell, D. R.
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Amman, C. G.
Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Poole, C. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Mayday, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton. T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silkin, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, O.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Capa, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Ncrmanton)


Chartelon, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chatar, D.
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cooks. F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thorne, W.


Dalton. H,
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Davies S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maclean, N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher. Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander. G. le M.
Wilmot, John


Fool, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro Jonas, G. M.
Messer, F.



George, Major G, Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

Mining Industry (Amendment)Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords'], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) (Re-Committed) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1. —(Provision of senior non-provided schools.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.5 P.m.

Mr. Ammon: I think the Committee will agree that this is a very remarkable addition to our legislation on education, and still more striking as an instance of the harmonising of sectarian differences. Perhaps it would not be a waste of time if some comment were made on the Bill before we pass it into law. The striking thing is that here we have a Bill that has come from a part of the country which has been notorious for sectarian differences, and that it has now arrived at a measure of agreement which everyone will appreciate. But we are mindful that the 1936 Act, which was passed for the purpose of harmonising and bringing together these various elements has, I understand, been the cause of one or two elections in that city, elections which were not harmoniously conducted, and naturally, when this Bill came before the Select Committee the Committee were a bit concerned as to exactly where was the catch in the Bill, and witnesses were questioned as to what had given rise to this Bill instead of the carrying out of the agreement under the 1936 Act.
Here, harmoniously settled, is a question that in the past has not only given rise to violent dissension but has sometimes resulted in bloodshed. Naturally questions were put to the witnesses, because the Select Committee were a little sceptical as to whether or not, after the long record of sectarian differences with regard to the schools, a settlement could be reached in the manner set forth in the Bill, and the only answer we could get was that there undoubtedly had been a change of heart. What that means one does not quite know, unless it is to be interpreted as meaning that the rival factions have decided to forget their religious differences and to act as Christians, in which case we have the Bill before us

to-day. When we had given in evidence the names of the advisory committee representative of the different sections it was felt that something like an anticlimax had been reached. Everyone welcomes this agreement and this condition of affairs in Liverpool. But I think it would be as well to enter a caveat against what one might call special legislation for different sections of the community. Otherwise we shall be landed into rather serious trouble in the future if major Bills are to be set aside in this way. We rejoice in the decision that has been arrived at, for while the seniors have been quarrelling the children have been suffering. This Bill will at least ensure that the children will receive the advantage of better school buildings and of more up-to-date equipment. For these reasons we welcome the Bill, and we hope that it will be the precursor of better and more harmonious times in Liverpool.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I am sure that we all desire the quick passage of the Bill, and I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes; but I would like to comment on the fact that the supporters of the Government in Liverpool were undoubtedly the cause of the delay that has occurred in that city, and indeed, they made political capital out of the religious question there. They succeeded, as a matter of fact, in defeating Members on this side of the Committee who stood loyally by the provisions of the 1936 Act. In passing, I would like to congratulate the Board of Education on the strong line they took. There has undoubtedly been a change of heart, but I should imagine that that change of heart was largely brought about by the fact that the Board resolutely refused to bend down to the Liverpool authority. In Liverpool there are some very bad buildings and those who opposed the 1936 Act in Liverpool were perpetuating those bad buildings. I can recall that when the 1936 Act was going through there was a general consensus of opinion that that agreement should be applied all over the country, that every section of the community should make its contribution to the agreement embodied in that Act.
I want to obtain, if I can, from the Parliamentary Secretary two specific promises. One is that the detailed agreement in Liverpool is not to form a precedent to be applied in other parts of


the country. This is a very exceptional Measure, as a matter of fact. We had the Act of 1936, which was to apply to the whole country. The Liverpool authority, the Conservatives, refused to apply that Act. Now, owing to that fact, these special arrangements have had to be made—special financial arrangements. I want from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, if I can have, it, a specific promise that there is to be no more contracting out of a national Act of Parliament so far as this question is concerned. The other promise I want from the hon. Gentleman is this: I am glad in one sense that this agreement has been arrived at, because in these religious differences it is the children who always suffer when they are educated in bad buildings. Presumably the Bill will provide for new buildings to take the place of the old buildings in Liverpool. I want to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a definite statement that there will be no dilatoriness so far as these schools in Liverpool are concerned, that the building of the new schools will go on, and go on rapidly. Anybody who knows anything about the conditions in the bad schools in Liverpool will realise that it is absolutely essential that speed should be the order of the day.
In the sense that an agreement has been made, we all welcome this conclusion, for it will be of benefit to the health of the children when the new schools are built. I want to repeat that the Liverpool Conservative party, over a period of years, have resisted a national agreement that had been arrived at, and have done so to the detriment of the interests of the children of Liverpool. They ought to be very grateful that, though they have resisted, wiser feelings have prevailed here and broader statesmanship has been shown as far as the education services are concerned. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give specific assurances on the points I have raised, I shall be prepared to facilitate the rapid passage of the Bill.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I want to say only a word or two at this stage. While I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) into controversies of the past, he will realise that I cannot accept the conclusions he has

drawn. Considering the pains that have been taken not only by persons in Liverpool but by the Board of Education and by everyone who has assisted in securing this agreement, we are anxious not to go into old controversies and rekindle old fires. With regard to the points which the hon. Member raised, I will only say that it is not our idea to make this a precedent. The Bill deals with the unique distribution of population which there is in Liverpool and the unique problems that arise there from. As to the question of the rapidity with which the buildings will be put up, it is the intention of all parties in Liverpool that they should be erected as quickly as possible, and the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of these matters, will understand that there is very good reason why they should be put up by 1943. Therefore, as far as Liverpool is concerned, although of course I do not presume to give an undertaking, the hon. Member will realise that, having come to this agreement, everyone is anxious that the best that can be done should be done for the children of all sections of the population.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I feel that at this stage one has to be as charitable as possible with regard to the difficulties through which we have passed in this matter. I assure every hon. Member that we are very well pleased that there has been a solution of this problem that has arisen in Liverpool. I should have liked to have seen the 1936 Act carried out, but difficulties arose in Liverpool that were not caused by the non-provided schools. It was a foreign element which caused all the trouble, and I trust that the death of that foreign element has now taken place in connection with the unanimous compromise which is embodied in this Bill. I am convinced that the Board of Education have done wisely in bringing all parties together and getting an arrangement in this matter. There is one fundamental fact which must be borne in mind, and which shows that this Bill is the only course, and that there is no alternative. I do not want anyone to have a wrong impression. It is founda-mental to the non-provided schools that religious training should be given in the schools, and from the point of view of the particular body to which I belong,


there could be no arrangement with regard to education unless that were agreed upon.
I am grateful to Members of the Labour party and particularly to those who, in spite of their own opinions and their principle that there should be a common law for the whole country, have given way in this matter because they feel that this is a domestic matter to Liverpool. During the whole of the negotiations, I have found a feeling among my colleagues that it would be well if we could settle the Liverpool difficulties without there being any question of personalities, and so once and for all bury the hatchet in order that the children should have opportunities of a fuller and better education as a result of these facilities. All my life I have lived in the Scotland area of Liverpool, in the Kew district, which is a dilapidated part of the city, and I know its people, We are very glad indeed that a solution has been found. Along with my colleagues, I can say that we are delighted that this particular business is now being ended. I feel that this is the only solution, and as an agreement has been come to, which ought to be accepted by hon. Members, I feel there is no necessity to waste any more time on the matter.

4.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): As unanimity exists in the Committee, it would be idle for a Minister to intervene. Whatever has happened in the past, the real point is that the children will profit in the future. Therefore, I have much pleasure in recording the unanimous agreement both in Liverpool and in this Committee.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I have not had answers to the questions I put, and if I am not to receive answers, I must speak on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.

I think that in courtesy some reference ought to be made to those questions, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will give me assurances on those points, the Bill will be passed very quickly.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I am sorry if any discourtesy was shown to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I thought that in a sense his questions were cancelled out by the speech on this side of the House. The title of this Bill, which is "Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill," should make it clear that it is a Bill which applies only to Liverpool, and inasmuch as fresh legislation would be needed, and there is precious little chance of getting it, I do not think there is any possibility of this applying anywhere else, or of any other city getting a similar Bill. Furthermore, I thought the hon. Member was aware that the conditions in Liverpool are unique. For that reason, in addition, I think he may take it that no precedent is being created. As to the second point which the hon. Member made, there is a time limit, and we shall try to see that these buildings go up as rapidly as possible. I give the hon. Member that undertaking on behalf of the Board.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I. —(Power of Secretary of State to make Orders.)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in page I, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that he shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions upon which such powers have been exercised and the number of persons affected thereby.

4.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before the hon. Member proceeds to speak on his Amendment, perhaps it would be well if I said that I am ready to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Mr. Foot.

4.26 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: Before the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) moves his Amendment—in page 1, line 11, at the beginning, insert: "Subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act "—I should be obliged to you, Sir Dennis, if you would give the Committee some guidance as to the course which the Debate will take on this Amendment and other similar Amendments. There is a number of Amendments on the Paper all of which, in one form or another, raise the question of judicial procedure or judicial vetoes on the Secretary of State's power. I suggest that it would be better to have a general discussion on the Amendments and then, if necessary, to have separate Divisions on individual Amendments, but to have only one discussion.

The Chairman: I think the Committee will agree in the main with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The discussion of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) necessarily involves the discussion of the proposed new Schedule in his name and necessarily involves, no doubt, considerable reference to an Amendment relating to the same issue standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman himself; I have regarded these in my mind as superseding also certain other Amendments dealing with the same principle. All those methods of dealing with the particular matter at issue would, of course, be open to discussion on this Amendment.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Logan: Before a general discussion takes place, I should like to have some guidance from you, Sir Dennis. I should like to know how I shall be able to raise the question of organisations which are not attached to this particular body, but which may be Irish bodies of a kindred kind in this country, and whether the right of entry given in this Bill will apply in the case of those kindred organisations. There would be a necessity for a differentiation, and I should like to be able to raise the question as to what the Minister intends to do under this Bill in regard to those bodies.

The Chairman: I think that is a matter for debate and not a matter in which I can help the hon. Member. He speaks of different organisations, but as far as I

have ascertained, no organisation is referred to in the Bill.

Mr. Logan: I am aware of that, Sir Dennis, but there cannot be persons without an organisation; and therefore, it follows that the right of entry might be given in the case of a particular body, outside the purview of this body, when it came within the category of certain people who might be mentioned in the Bill. I am anxious to know how kindred organisations, having individual membership, would be protected in regard to the right of entry, and whether the right of entry will be given ad lib with regard to any of those bodies.

The Chairman: That is, obviously, a matter upon which I cannot give the hon. Member any guidance at this stage. If it arises on any of the Clauses of the Bill, he will have an opportunity of referring to it later.

Mr. Pritt: With regard to the proposal that there should be a general discussion to cover, once and for all, the question of the extent to which the judiciary is to be allowed to come into this matter, I am the last person to waste time or to have unnecessary repetition but, at the same time, I feel a little anxious in this respect. The question of principle, of how the judiciary can be brought into this matter at any particular stage, may arise in very different forms in relation perhaps to three or four different provisions in the Bill. I should not like to find myself in an hour or two in the position of learning that something to which I attached importance was something which I could not discuss, or, alternatively, being compelled on this Amendment to make a speech which I did not want to make at this stage, to which nobody wanted to listen at this stage and which was not properly applicable or properly apprehended at this stage.

The Chairman: I do not want to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman used language which appeared to mean more than he intended; but I think this is a matter in regard to which the hon. and learned Gentleman may rely upon the Chair. I intended only to widen the discussion as far as was necessary to allow us to deal with the principle raised by the Amendment which I have called, coupled with the proposed Schedule in the name


of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members. There are probably other parts of the Bill in relation to which the question of the position of the judiciary may arise. In such cases, of course, the question will clearly be open for discussion except in so far as concerns any Amendment on which it may be sought to do something contrary (not to what any hon. Member had said in the course of the discussion), but contrary to a decision already arrived at by the Committee.

Mr. Pritt: I am grateful to you, Sir Dennis.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page I, line II, at the beginning, to insert:
Subject to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
The object of this Amendment is to provide that the power of making an expulsion order, contained in Clause I shall only be exercised subject to the provisions of the proposed Schedule (Procedure for making expulsion and prohibition orders) which will be found later on the Order Paper. We have a similar Amendment referring to the case of prohibition orders. We propose that no expulsion or prohibition order should be made except where a judge has made a report on the case, and that, before exercising his discretion the Secretary of State must have regard to the judge's report and to any recommendations which the judge may make. It is also proposed that notice must be served on anybody against whom it is proposed to make an order, calling upon him to appear on a certain date before a judge in chambers to show cause why the order should not be made against him. There is also a provision that evidence may be taken and that the person against whom it is proposed to make the order shall have an opportunity of knowing the charges against him and of cross-examining the witnesses who support those charges. Finally we propose that if the judge definitely recommends that no order should be made, then the right hon. Gentleman shall not be empowered to make the expulsion or prohibition order at all. Apart from that we leave him a certain measure of discretion.
I do not suggest that the proposed procedure is ideal or that it is one which I would wish to see followed in the normal course. But I think it represents a. great improvement on what is in the Bill and it is certainly a great deal better than what the right hon. Gentleman himself proposes in a later Amendment to Clause 2. This raises the biggest issue in the Bill, namely whether a person against whom it is proposed to make one of these orders is to have any form of hearing or trial. That is the fundamental question which we have to decide. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for any hearing or trial and I think it was a scandal that a Minister should stand at that Box and recommend that that should be so. We have now seen the terms of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the Order Paper and to which I presume I may refer. In this Amendment it is proposed that if the person on whom notice has been served objects, and says that there are no grounds for making the proposed order, he may state in writing the reasons for his objection and the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter to the advice of a person nominated by him not being an officer of police or of any Government Department, and the person so nominated shall interview the objector, examine his objections and report to the Secretary of State.
That procedure, of course, is very different from what I am suggesting in this Amendment and in the proposed Schedule. We do not know who is to be the person appointed by the Secretary of State. If he is appointed by the Secretary of State he can be dismissed by the Secretary of State and he is therefore in a very different position from a judge who is independent of the Home Office. One can well imagine that if the Home Office considered that the person who had been appointed for this purpose was taking too favourable a view of these cases, they would probably substitute somebody else. Apart from that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, although an improvement on the Bill as it stands, does not meet the chief objections which we have put forward to Clause I. In the first place, there is no opportunity for the man who is charged to know what case is being brought against him. He does


not know the grounds on which it is proposed to make the order against him. He is expected to meet a case which he has not heard. If he is an innocent man, all he can say is, "I have never had any connection with the Irish Republican Army." He is required to prove a negative, which is always, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, exceedingly difficult. He does not know who his accusers are. He has to make representations in writing and a person appointed by the Home Secretary is then to consider the matter.
Again, under this procedure, the accused person has no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who support the charges. That is a vital difference. It is not enough for some persons appointed by the Home Secretary and for the right hon. Gentleman himself to examine carefully the various statements made. The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that he would, himself, examine with the greatest care every one of these cases, but all he will do will be to examine the reports of the person he has appointed and these various written statements which are put before him. That is very different from anything in the form of a trial. Again and again, those of us who spend some of our time in the criminal courts, have seen cases in which, on the depositions, it looked as if there could be no defence. But as soon as you get the witnesses for the prosecution into the box, and cross-examine them when the other witnesses are out of court and show the jury the discrepancies in their evidence you often find that there is no foundation for the charge.
I would remind the Committee of one famous example—not in this country— which took place thousands of years ago namely the case of Susanna and the Elders. Under the procedure proposed in this Bill and in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, Susanna would have been disbelieved, because there would have been only these written statements and there would have been no opportunity of cross-examining the Elders. Susanna would have been stoned to death and the Elders would have been justified and held up as examples to all men. That must, inevitably, have happened if the right of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution had been taken away in that case and that is bound

to happen in some cases if a procedure such as the right hon. Gentleman now suggests, is embodied in the Bill. I am not under-estimating the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made but it does not go far enough. I think he must go further. There must be, first, a statement of the grounds on which, and the reasons for which, it is proposed to make the order; secondly, there should be an opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses who support the charge, and, thirdly, the investigation should be carried out, not by a person appointed by and responsible to the Home Secretary, but by someone in the position of a judge who does not owe his office to the favour of a Government Department.

4.42 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) whose knowledge of the Bible is as great as his father's knowledge of Burke. In the course of a very persuasive speech, and I say at once that the point which he has raised goes to the heart of the Bill and deals with the principle on which the Bill is based. I wish at the very beginning of this Committee stage to put before hon. Members the position as the Government see it. Let us begin by considering what is common ground between us. First, I suggest that, assuming that the men who are to be brought within the scope of the Bill are potential terrorists, the procedure we propose is a very reasonable procedure. What is in the minds of hon. Members is not the position of the guilty, but the risk to the innocent. Secondly, I suggest, we are all agreed that we should take every possible precaution that is practicable within the scope of the Bill against injustice being done and against mistakes being made. It is worth remembering that there are a number of safeguards already in the Bill.
First there is the scope of the Bill, which we have made as narrow and as limited as we could. We intend that the Bill shall be restricted to the cases of these potential terrorists and if any hon. Member can suggest a narrower or better definition to make it quite clear that we do not want to use these powers generally in other fashions, we shall be perfectly ready to consider such suggestions. The Title of the Bill is, I would remind the Committee, a much more restricted Title


than the Title of the Official Secrets Act, to which reference was made more than once in the Second Reading Debate. Secondly, there is the further safeguard that we restrict the scope of the Bill to persons who have not been resident here for a certain number of years. That again is a further safeguard, restricting it to comparatively recent arrivals in this country. Thirdly, the duration of the Bill is limited to two years, and that shows in itself that it is meant to be an emergency Measure to meet what we hope will prove to be a temporary emergency. Lastly, there is the general safeguard of Parliamentary control, and there is the undertaking, which I gave in the course of the Second Reading Debate, that the Secretary of State would look individually into every one of these cases.
The hon. Member for Dundee wishes us to go further and to add the safeguard of what is really a judicial procedure. He said that such a procedure would allow the Secretary of State some discretion, but within a very narrow field. The only discretion to be allowed the Secretary of State would be that he should be allowed to confirm the orders alreadymade—not a very wide discretion. He further wishes to introduce into the procedure of the Bill the procedure of the law courts. These proposals do really strike at the very root of the Bill. If we felt that the police could carry out their duties effectively without these extra-judicial powers, we should not come to the House of Commons to-day; we should take the cases into the courts of law, and we should hope to get convictions. But the very basis of this Bill is that there is a number of cases of suspicion in connection with this conspiracy to which this legal procedure is not applicable. I do not want to gloss over the fact at all. There is the fact that we have in mind a number of suspects in the country, whom we are convinced are at the centre of this trouble, whom, for one reason or another, we cannot take into a court of law, and in whose cases the ordinary legal procedure is not applicable. They are not cases in which you can have the ordinary legal cross-examination. If you did, you would endanger, not only your sources of information, but the lives of individuals who are in contact with the Government.
The older Members of this House will remember the early days of this Irish agitation. Time after time these blood

vendettas went on, and one or other man who was in contact with the Government was killed, very likely quite a long time after the incident. We cannot run that risk. These are essentially cases, as I say, to which legal procedure is not applicable. If you set up a legal procedure, I am inclined, speaking as a layman, to think that it would be a mere parody of what we believe to be the way in which legal proceedings should be conducted. These cases, by the admission of the hon. Member, ought to be held in camera. I cannot myself see, in cases of suspicion of this kind, the ordinary legal procedure applying. In fact, I think the result would be to set up a new system of Star Chambers, in which a judge would be apparently acting upon a basis of legal procedure, but in actual practice he would not be so acting, and in which the House of Commons would not have the remedy, supposing the powers were abused, as it has in the Bill, against the Secretary of State.

Mr. Foot: If the Secretary of State makes an order under our proposal, why is he not to be answerable to the House of Commons?

Sir S. Hoare: Suppose the Secretary of State is convinced that an order should be made in the interests of the security of the State, and suppose the judge for some reason or other refuses that order. The Secretary of State cannot make the order, and subsequently the man blows up the Houses of Parliament. Who is responsible then? [Hon. Members: "You would be."] It is a very inverted form of responsibility. Let me remind hon. Members that the basis of the Bill is preventive. We are not imprisoning the suspects, we are not proposing to put them into internment camps; all that we are proposing to do is to send them back to the country from which they came.

Mr. Silverman: How do we know? It is not in the Bill.

Sir S. Hoares: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that that is the intention of the Government. This is not the kind of case that was more than once quoted in the Second Reading Debate, of a British citizen being sent to prison without charge. It is preventive action. We want to get these people out of the country and to prevent them


coining into the country, and I should have thought, taking that into account, and taking into account the objections that I have urged against the introduction of judicial procedure, that the Committee generally would come to the conclusion that any proposal such as is made by the hon. Member for Dundee and a number of other hon. Members whose names are on the Paper is quite in applicable. I do say in the Committee this afternoon, with all the force that I can command, that if a judicial procedure of this kind is introduced into the Bill, the Bill, from the point of view of giving the Government, the police, and the community generally greater security against these outrages, is useless.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of person he has in mind as the person to whom he is going to refer these cases?

Sir S. Hoare: The right hon. Gentle man, with his agile mind, jumps on more quickly than most hon. Members. I, with my slower mind, was coming to that point. It may be said that there is nothing more to be done except to leave the Bill exactly as it is. I will be quite frank with the Committee, and I can say, as Home Secretary, that provided the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary is left intact, I would welcome the opportunity of having an outside opinion upon the cases, unconnected with the official administration of the Home Office, or a Government Department, or the police force. I say, first of all, that you must retain the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary, but within that limitation I should welcome the help of a man or men of this kind. The kind of people whom I have in mind—and I will be ready to discuss personalities with the right hon. Gentleman and with other people interested—are men who would obviously be independent in their position and who would be regarded as in partial people, whose opinion would carry weight.

Mr. Pritt: With legal training?

Sir S. Hoare: With or without legal training; I would not exclude one or the other. I do not think— and I say this with great deference in the presence of distinguished lawyers—that this is the kind of job for an acting judge, because

the procedure is so very different from the procedure in a court of law, but I would by no means exclude men with legal experience. The whole point is that men of this kind should be people whose opinions would carry respect, and I would, supposing the Committee agreed with my proposal, give these gentlemen all the information that we had at the Home Office or that the police might have about these cases. I would further see that the complainants were inter viewed by them. I attach considerable importance to a man being confronted by someone who is neither a Home Office official nor an officer of the police, but someone outside the Home Office and the police force, and I would give these gentlemen considerable latitude as to how, further, they carried out their inquiries I believe, myself, that that is the real way to deal with this problem. I be lieve, myself, that there is a number of hon. Members of this House who, while agreeing with me that a legal procedure is not applicable to these cases, would yet like to be satisfied that someone out side the Home Office machine should look into these cases, see the complainants, and then advise the Secretary of State.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: If the validity of the objections depends on securing statements from other persons, would the individual appointed by the Home Secretary to examine the objections be allowed to have the benefit of the evidence or statements made by such other persons?

Sir S. Hoare: I would give these men very great latitude as to how they con ducted the inquiry, and I would not exclude that. I should imagine that cases might have to be dealt with upon their merits and that what might apply in one case might not necessarily apply in another. The whole object is not to make some smoke screen behind which the Secretary of State can hide, but to give the Home Secretary real help from outside in avoiding mistakes and injustices that might otherwise be made. I would include in the subjects of inquiry the subject of the duration of the man's residence. That is the kind of question that I should allow any inquiry to take within its scope. I think I have said enough to show the Committee quite clearly what is the Government's position. We cannot accept a legal procedure in any form, but


I believe, myself, that the proposal that I am prepared to make when my Amendment on the Paper is called will meet the suspicions of nine out of ten reasonable people in this House, and will make it much less likely that there will be mistakes or cases of injustice in the future, or, what is equally important, that people may think that there will be cases of that kind. With these words dealing with the general proposition, I would ask the Committee to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee.

Mr. Foot: Under the procedure that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed as an alternative to our own, am I not right in thinking that there is no provision at all whereby the person against whom it is proposed to make an Order will be served with any documents setting out the case against him, and no provision for letting him know the grounds on which it has been decided to make the Order?

Sir S. Hoare: The case that he has to meet is obviously that he is suspected of conspiracy.

Mr. Pritt: If under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal he refers the matter to a person nominated by him to interview the objector and examine the objection. If the person interviews the objector and hears nothing of the right hon. Gentleman's case he is more likely to be recommended to be let off. Therefore in the long run the right hon. Gentleman is sure to put before the nominated person the outline of his case.

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can have heard what I said. I said that the examiner would have full information already.

5.1 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I sympathise perhaps more with the right hon. Gentleman's attitude than some of my hon. Friends of the legal profession because I am not of the legal profession. I was at one time a member of a special judicial body set up for the purpose of examining appeals by officers. That tribunal had as chairman a gentleman of legal experience, who subsequently became a magistrate, a representative of the military authorities, and myself as representative of the medical point of view. We reviewed the evidence, which was very often not evidence which a lawyer would have accepted. It was very

difficult to sort out but we came to such conclusions as we could to the best of our ability. Would not a tribunal of that kind be better than an individual? Does not investigation of this kind, though it cannot be conducted on legal lines, require someone with legal knowledge to guide other members of the tribunal, who might be able to look at it from a different point of view?

Mr. Bevan: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the person should not in fact be appointed by him?

The Chairman: The Debate is getting a little out of hand. I permitted one or two Members to ask questions, but this is developing into a disorderly Debate.

Mr. Bevan: I thought we were going to discuss genuinely the matter of judicial procedure.

The Chairman: That may be, but the hon. Member has not yet been called.

5.4 p.m

Mr. Pickthorn: Might I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether there is any intention of calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and myself and the new Sub-section (7) in our names?

The Chairman: No. I regard that as superseded.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope it is in order to try to indicate what seems to me rather the different point raised by those two Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman fully convinced most of us, if we needed conviction, that the full judicial procedure asked for by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) would hardly do, but at the same time I thought some of his arguments did not fully meet the point to which they were addressed.

The Chairman: I may have misled the hon. Member. It is true that I was not proposing to call these Amendments in his name, but he may be interested to know that I was proposing to call the one immediately before it, which has the same effect.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the effect is not quite the same.

The Chairman: That may be. I am just informing the hon. Member of why I was not calling his Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman listed four safeguards. The first was that he had to act within a particular scope, and the second that he had to act only in respect of non-residents. If what is being asked is some sort of safeguard of a legal, or judicial, or quasi-judicial character, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the first two limitations seems to me to have validity only if it can be supposed that there is some hope, or some risk, as one's feeling may be—some chance—that the courts might entertain a question about whether any particular order was within the scope, or was dealing with non-residents; otherwise the right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to me not to be directed to the point that it was intended to meet. In a case (ex parte Sacksteder) in 1918 Lord Justice Pickford said:
I am certainly not inclined to say that in no case can the court go behind an order, which on the face of it is valid, ordering detention or custody. If that order is practically a sham, if the purpose behind is such as to show that the order is not a genuine or bona fide order, it seems to me that the court can go behind it.
Practically the same thing was said in concurrence by, I think, Lord Justice Warrington. It occurred therefore to my hon. Friend and myself that it was perhaps possible to go a modest way in the direction that the hon. Member wants, and at the same time to be in this respect strengthening the Secretary of State's hand, because at present the Secretary of State has to be satisfied not merely that there is suspicion against a particular man; he has to be satisfied that the man is concerned in certain nefarious practices. The dictionary sense of definition in this connection is,
furnished with sufficient proof or information; assured or set free from doubt or uncertainty; convinced.
I do not wish to suggest that any Secretary of State could be more conscientious than the present Secretary of State, but a very conscientious Secretary of State might feel himself limited by the word "satisfied" to cases where there was very strong and very rigid proof.
It must really be in the interest of administration that it should be made clear that what the Secretary of State has to have is a reasonable suspicion. In that case, might it not be possible to give us the new Sub-section (7), this small step towards traditional legality, judiciality,

that a judicially practised person sitting in camera should be able to hear appeals, not against conviction, because there would be no conviction, but simply appeals in which he would decide, as no doubt he would generally decide, that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds of suspicion, or in rare cases that he had not. Some such arrangement as that, even if the drafting of our Amendment is not all that it might be, would really go further than the Government Amendment to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Dundee and at the same time might really, on the whole, rather strengthen the executive than weaken it.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The Bill has had a Second Reading, and I do not want to discuss it on any footing except that it is a Bill that is going through, whether it ought to or not, and that we all want, without heat or unnecessary controversy, to get into it as much proper safeguard as we can. Nevertheless, I feel that what the right hon. Gentleman is offering is very little indeed. He said it would be common ground between all of us that, assuming the people to be potential terrorists and not innocent men mistakenly accused, this was very reasonable procedure. Really that means quite nothing because, if you can safely assume the guilt of people, you do not want any investigation into their guilt at ail, and the whole point is that you can never assume people to be guilty, or to be potential terrorists, and therefore we can all surely agree that assuming as proved the one thing that has got to be proved, there is no need to worry any further. I am not making a debating point because the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was a possibility of injustice and mistake and we must take every possible precaution against this thing happening. We have spent 500 years, and goodness knows how many millions of pounds, building up a set of precautions against injustice. When I criticise them I get strongly criticised for doing so. Now the right hon. Gentleman wants to jettison the lot as far as a certain number of people are concerned. He agrees that a very strong case has to be made out for doing that. He gave a number of reasons but they do not convince me. He says that any legal procedure will be fatal to his object. I want


to submit a few considerations why that cannot be so.
It cannot be right to say that you can never safely, in a matter of this kind, have the intervention of any one who has been trained to decide questions of fact, and must leave it entirely to people whom a lawyer would describe as amateurs in the most difficult trade in the world, to decide a question of fact in a case in which neither party is telling the truth. 1 think the principal objection in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman is the belief that the judges will bring to bear upon the decision of any question of fact the ordinary rules of legal procedure and apply the rules of evidence; in other words, they will tend to demand the same standard of proof about these suspicions as they would demand if it were an actual indictment for some offence not dissimilar in description. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman greatly underrates the intellectual ability of judges. I myself have done that from time to time. I certainly have never believed that there is the slightest difficulty in asking a judge to decide a point on a different standard of proof. We know that there is one High Court Judge, who has endeared himself to many of us, who has never decided an objection against evidence in his life. He always says, "We will hear the evidence and see what it comes to." I think he would be one of the best possible men for this work, but I must not give his name.
I myself have a little of the quasi-judicial experience that most barristers have who have sat as arbitrators. I have sat as an arbitrator under the strict rules of evidence, as an arbitrator in cases where the parties mutually agreed to allow a great deal of what would be normally inadmissible evidence to be heard, and once in a case where it was expressly stated that I was to disregard the rules of evidence and take into consideration everything that seemed to have anything to do with the matter. I do not regard myself as an overwhelmingly intelligent person, but I did not find the slightest difficulty in applying either of those two what I may call irregular standards of proof. Therefore, I submit that the right hon. Gentleman could at some stage submit either to the advice or to the actual decision of a trained judge, either one still on the Bench or

even a retired judge, the same task as is being committed to him, namely, to satisfy himself that "a person is concerned," and so forth, as described in the Bill. If he can, as he proposes to do, remit any such question to what I may call an amateur examiner, as is proposed in his own Amendment, there is no earthly reason why it should not be remitted to a judicial authority. I would rather it were remitted to a judicial authority siting in open court.
The right hon. Gentleman says it is obvious that such a thing could not be done and that it will have to be done in camera. I say that it would be far better to have a responsible judge sitting in camera than an individual only very indirectly responsible to this House sitting in a room in the Home Office. If it be said that we must not let the man get away meanwhile—a thing I am quite capable of understanding—they might arrest him at the beginning of the proceedings and hold him meanwhile. If it be said that we cannot give away in the presence of the accused person the identity of the informants—agents, spies, or detectives—one answer is, "I do not like it, but it is better than nothing," and another answer is that it should be possible to arrange that their identity should not be disclosed to an accused person, although I contemplate a procedure in which he has the advantage of being present. The right hon. Gentleman says that in that way we should be building up a new Star Chamber. He is building up something that has not got even the light of the star.
Then the right hon. Gentleman very ingeniously made our flesh creep—and I have got such a lot of flesh to creep—by saying, "Suppose a man is, so to speak, acquitted by one of these judicial authorities and then comes along and blows up this House." The real answer to that is that it is just as likely to happen when the right hon. Gentleman himself decides the matter. If the imperfections of the evidence or the ingenious answers to the evidence can deceive a High Court judge to such an extent as to make him say that he is not satisfied that the person in question has been concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence when he is, in fact, a person who is immediately afterwards to walk down Whitehall and blow up this House—if somebody can


fool a High Court judge to that extent, then he can also fool the Home Secretary.
I would add a word about the Amendment of the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and Cambridge Univesity (Mr. Pickthorn). I think that to add to the words "if the Secretary of State is satisfied," the words "that there are reasonable grounds to suspect" would make things a little easier for the Secretary of State. I thought it was meant to make it a little better for the individual, but if I have misunderstood the point I will not take up time by talking about it. For these reasons it is my submission to the House that the suggestion that this Bill cannot possibly work if the persons primarily intended to decide questions of fact in relation to criminal activities, that is, the judges, are brought in, is a very serious contention indeed and one which ought to fail.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should like to make it plain that I have no desire to make things more difficult for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. No one realises more than I do the extreme gravity of the present situation and the responsibility he has to this House and to the country for the protection of the public. One hon. Member behind me reminds me of what happened at King's Cross to-day, and that is a good example, but that a bomb has exploded in King's Cross is no reason why hon. Members should not give the most careful consideration to a Measure of this kind. My right hon. Friend was assuming that the people who are brought within the scope of the Bill are potential terrorists, but it is not potential terrorists alone who come within its scope. You, Sir Dennis, and I are brought within the scope of the Bill, like any other member of the public. If I go to an Underground station with my suitcase and put it down for a moment and pick up another by mistake, and go on to the British Museum, and then a ticking noise is heard coming from the suitcase and I am arrested, I am within the scope of the Bill just the same as anybody else, and am subject to its provisions.
My right hon. Friend said something about "suspicion" and "suspect." He has used those words on several occasions. He said that when a man was

before this person who is nominated by him he would know the charge, which was that he was suspected. I find myself in some difficulty, because in Clause 1 I do not see anything about "suspicion," I do not see the word "suspect" even mentioned, and in those circumstances it is a little difficult to understand just what is the charge that either my right hon. Friend or the person nominated by him is going to investigate. If I may answer the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) my Amendment was designed to meet this very point. Clause 1 as it stands creates a number of new offences. If my hon. Friend says that it does not create offences, at any rate it sets down a number of acts, and says that anyone who does them will get into serious trouble. It also sets up a tribunal or a person before whom these offences are tried. In this case it is the Home Secretary. Before the Home Secretary can act in the matter it is perfectly plain, from the wording of the Bill, that he has to be satisfied about a number of facts and matters connected with design and intention. If he is so satisfied he can make an order.
My difficulty is that I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman ever can be satisfied. He has already told us that while he has suspicions about these people, and refers to them as suspects, he has no evidence upon which he could ask any jury or High Court judge to convict. Surely the standard of evidence which is satisfactory is not a different standard for a Home Secretary and for a High Court judge, or for any reasonable person, and in those circumstances my hon. and learned Friend was right in putting down that Amendment in an endeavour to assist my right hon. Friend. I thought it was better, as he was going to convict these people on suspicion, that we should say so quite frankly, rather than use the phrase, "if he is satisfied," when on his own admission he has nothing upon which he can be satisfied. Moreover, my right hon. Friend having said he had got no evidence on which he could satisfy a judge, our feeling was that if the matter ever came before a judicial tribunal, where these matters would be investigated in any proper manner by a judge, we should


lessen the onus upon him and make it easier for him to prove his case before that tribunal. It was our desire on the one hand to lessen the standard of proof and on the other hand to increase the standard of the tribunal before whom the person was tried.
As at present advised I am bound to say that I am in sympathy with the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I am open to reason and am waiting with interest to hear the reply. I do not know when the Government Amendment which is designed to be a substitute for that one was put down but in the short space of time at my disposal I have endeavoured to study it. I do not think anybody has had time to put down any Amendment to it. I do not want to be dogmatic about these things, I am willing to listen to any reasonable solution of the problem, but there are certain matters of principle which really ought to be considered. The first thing that comes to my mind is that anybody who is charged before the Home Secretary or the person nominated by him should know with what he is charged. My right hon. Friend was questioned upon that matter in the Debate. He says the man is a suspected person. That is typical of the sort of difficulties which will arise. Under this Bill he may be suspected of one of about a dozen things —of being concerned in preparing an act of violence, or instigating an act of violence, or harbouring someone. He ought to be allowed to know what is the charge against him. Moreover, he ought to know the time and date at which the offence is alleged to have taken place, where it is alleged to have taken place or whom he is supposed to have harboured. These things may seem elementary, but they are no legal quibble. If I were charged with an offence I should certainly want to know what those things were.
The second point of principle is that the person ought to have an opportunity of stating his case in person. My right hon. Friend has gone some way towards meeting that point because the person can go along and state his case. I may be rather prejudiced in this matter but I would prefer that he should be allowed to state his case with the assistance of solicitor and counsel. I will not press this point because I realise that I may

have a bias. That suggestion may come better from somebody else. The principle is that he should have an opportunity of calling witnesses in his own defence. I hope that the point I am putting will be answered. I should like to know whether, in the arrangements visualised by my right hon. Friend, the accused will be able to call witnesses to give evidence on oath as to his character, movements and so forth.
Fourthly, I suggest that he should be allowed to confront his accusers and to ask them questions. He should be able to ask questions tending to show that what they had said was false or that they were biased and prejudiced against him. Will any such opportunity be given in any circumstances? I realise that there is some difficulty, because matters of public policy may be involved and you may not want to disclose the name of a witness; but such difficulties have been met before. They were met in the Revolutionary and Anarchical Crimes Act, 1919, in India, where a situation had to be faced which was far worse than this. Special provision was put in that the investigating committee, or a body such as is now suggested, should certify in writing that any particular witness could not be called to speak in respect of any facts put before the accused.
The last point of principle which I wish to put goes really to the root of the matter. It relates to independent third-party judgment. In raising these points I cast no reflection on the Home Secretary whatever, because I am certain that he will administer this Measure to the best of his ability; but third-party judgment is not merely a legal quibble. It is a matter upon which constitutional lawyers have rather prided themselves for a number of centuries. I do not believe in old forms merely for themselves, and I do not think anybody can call me a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative, but I am certainly sufficiently Conservative, when I see something which has been going on for a long time and working very well, to wonder whether it is wise to take it away at once unless there is some very good reason.
This practice has very good reason behind it. Suppose some person's case is investigated by my right hon. Friend and he entertains some doubt, not as to his guilt but as to his innocence. What


would he do then? He might say: "He is better out of the country. I am not going to run any risks. Suppose the House of Commons is blown up; I shall have to answer to the House and to the country." I do not think we could find it in our herats to blame him if he took that view. That is the reason why we should have some third person with an opportunity of investigating these matters. I have already referred to the Revolutionary and Anarchical Crimes Act, 1919 in India. At that time the authorities were faced with a very much graver situation than that with which we are now faced. That Act was devised to meet crimes of treason, torture, murder, manslaughter and damage to property, and contained provisions similiar to those that we are suggesting. They strove to the best of their ability to maintain some substantial constitutional liberty.
I think I have said enough to indicate that my right hon. Friend has not satisfied me, at this stage, that it is necessary to sweep away these various points of principle and that some of my criticisms should be met. Perhaps they could not be met in the way suggested in the Amendment now before us, but by extending my right hon. Friend's own Amendment; in my view, they should be met.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I should like to join with the hon. Member who preceded me in saying that none of us would seek to embarrass the Home Secretary in dealing with the present situation. It is very important to know that the Home Secretary has the whole country behind him in the desire to prevent these crimes of violence. Whatever the political outlook of the individuals may be there is, I believe, unanimity throughout the country to assist the Home Secretary in preventing those crimes of violence. One thing that impresses me is that the steps proposed by the Home Secretary may have the very opposite effect from what he desires. The provisions in Clause 1 may lead to harsh treatment of innocent people, and that would in turn create sympathy for the terrorists, especially if the innocent people had been treated in a harsh and oppressive way. In framing his Measure the Hon.; Secretary must see to it that he is creating no possibility that will give

strength to the terrorists in their policy of conspiracy.
When the Home Secretary was dealing with his own proposal in opposition to that which is before the Committee he seemed to suggest that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) practically insisted upon a legal tribunal, but as I read it the Amendment does not imply an ordinary legal tribunal in accordance with the laws of evidence. The distinction between what is proposed by the Home Secretary and what is proposed now by the hon. Member for Dundee is that under the latter proposal the person who will operate in this connection has to have a certain amount of experience in weighing facts and points of evidence, so that he will be able to bring to the consideration of a case a certain amount of experience. Because of his experience he will have judgment to bring to bear in dealing with these cases. The proposal of the Home Secretary, on the other hand, is to nominate somebody—and it may be anybody— without any experience. I am doubtful whether the Home Secretary's proposal will not make matters worse, because it would put this untrained and inexperienced person between the Home Secretary and the House of Commons, if the Home Secretary should be called into question afterwards with regard to any action that had been taken.
The Home Secretary would then have the defence: "I put the papers before Mr. So-and-So, who agreed with me that this fellow ought to get put out, or that this order should be made that the individual should be registered, should report to the police and be put into the position contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. Mr. So-and-So's opinion was the same as my own." Such a defence is of practically no importance, because while the right hon. Gentleman will have what facts have been put before him by the Homo Office in connection with the case, and may have seen the man, the man has had no opportunity of putting forward to him anything very material in opposition to the case that has been made out against him. The Amendment suggests that there may be not sufficient evidence to get a conviction by a jury or by a judge, but nevertheless sufficient evidence to lead a judge to see that there is grave suspicion against the individual; and that on account


of that grave suspicion the Home Secretary is justified in taking reasonable precautions.
That is a dangerous position, but the Home Secretary has come to the House and said that something of that kind is necessary. He has said: "I want you to leave it with myself and this other individual whom I am nominating," but surely it is better that there should be some sort of order in this matter and that the accused person who is to be treated in this fashion shall have some idea of the case which he has to meet. He is to be allowed 48 hours to send in a notice to the Home Secretary, and if the Home Secretary thinks it is not frivolous it will be very difficult for him to give material reasons in telling the man that he has to register here. The man will say: "Why have I to register? They must think that I was acting suspiciously." Then he will send in an account saying that he met Mr. Murphy only on a certain occasion. Possibly it will not be his association with Mr. Murphy which is the reason for the action, which is being taken in respect of something entirely different.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the Amendment prevent that?

Mr. Stephen: As I read it, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee gives the individual an opportunity to appear before the judge. The individual would know something about the charges with which he was faced. The Amendment would have a certain force in stopping what will be possible under the proposals of the Home Secretary It means the difference between something that has a certain amount of organisation about it, that has a certain amount of reasonable consideration attached to it, and something that is completely haphazard. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the whole matter, because I am convinced that the greatest service will be done to the terrorists if decent, honest people come under suspicion and are harshly treated in this way. I venture to prophesy that this procedure of the Home Secretary may bring about a movement for the terrorists. In spite of what has happened, I very much doubt whether there is at the moment any real strength at all in the terrorist movement, but, if hundreds of people are subjected to the procedure under the Home Secretary's

proposal, even as modified by the Amendment to-day, I can see it bringing ever so much sympathy to the friends of these people. That will spread again to many others, and will have the effect of creating a movement in support of the terrorists, which would be regrettable. I hope the Home Secretary, when he is going the extreme distance of wanting to act on suspicion, will see the advantage of making sure that the safeguards in connection with acting on suspicion are as great as they can be, in contradistinction to the ordinary judicial procedure.

5.47 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I oppose this Amendment and support the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will give way no further. He has perhaps gone too far. We have heard a great deal about suspicion and suspects. I was taught in my youth that a thing might be said to be true when a reasonable man in the conduct of his private business was justified in assuming that it was so. The Home Secretary has to be "satisfied," and that word should suffice without further elaboration. I entirely dissent from the gloomy prophecy of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that hundreds of persons, many of them innocent, are likely to be affected by the operation of the Bill. In Tennyson's words:
 You make our faults too gross,
And hence maintain
Oar future darker;
May your fears be vain.
There is no likelihood of any large number of persons coming under the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Stephen: Surely it is a grave matter if it requires a special interference with the whole judicial machinery that has been brought into being as a result of centuries of experience. It is not simply to deal with one or two. Surely there will be hundreds.

Sir A. Wilson: It is a grave matter, but our first concern should be to get the ringleaders. They will not risk their own skins, but only the lives of their dupes, I hope we shall not have any element of judicial procedure spatchcocked into this Clause. It seems to me to be most unfair to the judiciary to use them in a matter which is necessarily for the executive. The business of Government is to govern. The Home Secretary has to stand up as his predecessors—Socialists


Liberals and Conservatives —have stood up, and to take the responsibility of governing. [Interruption.] The fact that the Home Secretary advises the Sovereign as to the commutation of the death penalty is an example of the great responsibility he exercises, and we have no reason whatever to be ashamed of it —the responsibility of revising the sentences of judges. [Interruption.] I will not split hairs with the hon. Member as to the difference between commuting a death sentence and revising a sentence. There is no sentence to pass under this Act, only a change of residence.

Mr. Foot: Surely to draw a distinction between a death sentence and another sentence is not to split hairs.

Sir A. Wilson: So far as my argument is concerned it is splitting hairs. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorney-croft) suggested that, if he picked up a bag which might contain an explosive that might thereafter go off, he might thereupon become a suspected person. May I tell the House very briefly the story of what happened on 24th January, 1885? At ten minutes past two p.m. on that day part of the House was blown up. Partitions were smashed and blown into the lobbies; the Peers' Gallery was damaged; great pieces of timber were thrown into it. Mr. Gladstone's seat was smashed to pieces by dynamite which was left under the cross benches parallel with the seat of the Sergeant at Arms. Police Constable Cole was injured in Westminster Hall. Police Constable Cox had been seriously injured outside the Chamber. Two persons were found in or near the Chamber, blackened and terrified but uninjured. They were at once arrested. They were quite unable to say why they were there except that they were members of the public and that they had as good a right to be in the House of Commons on a Saturday afternoon as anybody else. They were arrested, taken to Bow Street, and strictly and minutely examined, and they were thereupon released. I do not doubt that that is what would happen to the hon. Member were he to be found in possession of a bag of explosives.

Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman veil the House what the Government did to meet that serious situation?

Sir A. Wilson: The situation was just as serious in 1885 as it is now. It was a Liberal Government that passed Measures compared with which the present common-sense Bill is mild—[Interruption.] I am referring to the Coercion Acts. At that time we were responsible for Ireland; we are now trying to keep order in England; and it seems to me entirely unfair to the judiciary to seek to place upon them a responsibility which properly belongs to the Home Secretary. I hope he will give way no further.
I have had some experience of con spiracies followed by murder, and of incendiarism and the like. Less than 20 years ago I lost half a dozen of my best friends by organised murder within six or eight months. It was quite impossible to obtain evidence, for any witnesses whom I might have brought before a court would unquestionably have been murdered the following week. It was quite impossible to obtain such proof as would have justified a judge in court in passing a sentence of death. I had no alternative but to resort to deportation and detention. It was a state of affairs parallel to that in India. The head of the Government was bcund to exercise in good faith the responsibility that lay on him to protect His Majesty's subjects and was justified by the outcome. Within a few months the ringleaders who were really behind what I might almost call the innocent dupes who had committed the murders were placed under arrest, and the murder campaign stopped almost as quickly as it had begun. It was the most humane, the most common sense, and by far the quickest method of putting an end to a state of affairs which might have involved thousands of innocent lives. The Home Secretary will never regret the bold action he is taking in putting for ward this Bill, and I earnestly hope he will not go a single inch further than the concessions he is already proposing in the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I intervene because I do not take the view of this Amendment that is taken by almost all who have spoken on this side of the Committee. I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. I have a feeling that, in the case of all these Measures, we nearly always get, not the ringleaders, but people who


in the main, compared with the ring leaders, are relatively innocent. One of my strong criticisms, not merely against this Clause but against the whole Bill, is that I do not think it will achieve the object that the Home Secretary desires. If I thought that it would, I would never oppose it, but I have taken that view, and I hold it still. Looking at this Amendment, one fears that the effect will be to take these actions outside party politics, and I want the Home Secretary's actions to be kept within party politics. I am very much afraid that, if a judge is appointed to act in this matter, the Home Secretary will have a defence in this House. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put it very well in an earlier Debate, Members of Parliament ought to have the unquestioned right to raise an issue like this, and I feel that this matter concerns me perhaps more than most people, because of the district that I represent in this House. It may well be that, if a judge is appointed, the Home Secretary's answer when the question is raised will be that it has been decided by the judge, and I should be told by the Chair that I have no right of criticism. The word "judge" is constantly used throughout the Schedule—

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member will see that the procedure I propose is that the judge shall make a report to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State -shall have regard to the report and recommendations, if any, in arriving at his decision. The one exception is where the judge comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds at all. In either case the final responsibility under the procedure remains with the Secretary of State, and he will be open to criticism in this House.

Mr. Buchanan: I agree, but what will the Home Secretary say to me? He will immediately say that a responsible judge has told him what has happened, and that will be the end of it. The Home Secretary will have a perfectly valid, defensible case if he says that a judge has been appointed and he has decided the matter. Those who look over other pieces of legislation of this type will find the same thing running through them. Quite frankly, I would much prefer that the Home Secretary should take whatever course he thinks proper and take the responsibility attaching to it. The Home

Secretary may make a serious mistake, but it is just as possible that a serious mistake may be made by a judge. There is, however, this difference, that if the judge makes a serious mistake nobody can remove him. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know as well as I do the impossibility of tackling a judge in this House. The lay judges in Glasgow sometimes do the most irresponsible and indefensible things, as was mentioned by an hon. Member for one of the London divisions the other day, but we cannot even raise the matter here. If the Home Secretary is not given this defence, it is quite possible that in certain circumstances he might be much more severely dealt with than if he has this defence given to him by the appointment of a judge. The Amendment, as far as I can see, proposes to set up an examiner. He must not be a member of the police or an employé of the Government, and he will have power to make recommendations to the Home Secretary. I would like to know who the examiner is to be. I hope the Home Secretary is not going to tell us that he is afraid to say who the examiner is; because if he does that, he will get to the stage of being afraid to tell us who the Home Secretary is. If there is one man who is in danger it is the Home Secretary.

Mr. Stephen: Would the hon. Member also propose carrying this principle right through, and abolishing the umpires?

Mr. Buchanan: No. The hon. Member and I once tried to get the House of Commons, and not the umpire, to be the judge in regard to the courts of referees. I myself took an active part in connection with that proposal, and an Amendment was moved. If the hon. Member will look back through the records he will find that that is so. I am anxious to keep the position so that the Home Secretary shall have nobody to pull in between him and me, and so that I shall have the right to attack him. There is a danger that if some mistake is made it will strengthen the terrorists. My fear about the Bill altogether is that it will strengthen, and not weaken them, but now that we have carried the Bill, I am not prepared to give the Home Secretary a way out. I would make him take the consequences if the Measure does not succeed.

Mr. Benn: We have some misgivings over this Bill. It makes very dangerous inroads into individual liberties. If our misgivings had not existed before, they certainly would have come into existence after the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). Suppose he were Home Secretary. He is a very distinguished administrator, and he might be Home Secretary one day. I am certain that nobody in the House would confide in him the powers which are given to the present Home Secretary, in whose sense of fairness, I think, hon. Members have great confidence. Another misgiving we have about the Bill is as to its effectiveness as a means of stamping out crime. I hope the Home Secretary will believe that the remarks I am going to make are made in order to assist in stamping out this movement.
I am not able to join in the legal arguments which have been advanced so skilfully by the gentlemen of the long robe, but in this country we have had a great deal of experience of this sort of question. No Empire in the world has had so much experience of terrorism and turbulent minorities as ourselves. The same things as are being said about these people were said about General Hertzog and General Smuts and people in India, and in Ireland in the past. I should like the Home Secretary to view the thing in the light of the experience which we have had in these matters. Above all, I would say to him, "Do not overpaint the picture." The one thing that is required to-day is to keep the temperature down. I do not think the Home Secretary was well advised to bring forward in his speech the other day that "S" plan, which was exposed at Bow Street some months ago, and which has provided splash headlines for the newspapers and suggestions about Guy Fawkes, and so on. If only we keep the temperature down, we deprive these people of something which would help them, and we prevent them from gaining sympathy. Of course, I am not defending these men, but I am trying to make a practical, commonsense suggestion.
When I was in office I had experience of terrorism, as the Home Secretary did in the same office. We know that when you are forced into violent measures you

have lost the trick, and when you get through without violent measures you are winning your way to greater peace. I remember the Meerut case. There was tremendous feeling in India and this country about that case, which had arisen before I went into office. I was pressed to intervene on this case. I refused, and was very severely criticised; but it turned out to be just as well in a way, because the judges, after an intolerably long investigation, vindicated one man, who afterwards was made a Member of this House. That had a good effect. Do not forget that your strongest weapon in dealing with terrorists is the belief of the people that you are being fair. When you have men or boys sent for 20 years' imprisonment, and they go shouting "Up Eire" you have to consider the psychology of them. Suppose you are driven to inflicting capital punishment. That will set us back in our efforts to stop this sort of thing. At present there is no sympathy for these people at all, but suppose that the wrong man is punished for something. The Home Secretary knows that I am not attacking him; I have the sincerest sympathy with him for the burdens that he is having to carry. He may be faced with hunger strikes. We have not forgotten the Lord Mayor of Cork, who died in Brixton Gaol. If anything of that sort happens the Home Secretary will be exposed 10 criticism, but if he can say "We have been fair," public opinion here and elsewhere will support him. I regard this Amendment as fundamental.
This matter affects our relations with Ireland. They have been much sweeter lately than they were before, but the Irish people will be very soon roused if innocent Irishmen are punished in this way. Our relations with America are very critical indeed for the peace of the world. We still have enemies there— they are thinning out, but they are still there. If it is believed that innocent men have been punished under this Act it will have a bad effect on those relations. The Home Secretary has said that there is the safeguard of the House of Commons. He has accepted an. Amendment of ours. But I wonder what the report which he will make to the House of Commons as a result of that Amendment will be like. It may be just numbers and dates. I have an Amendment down, which proposes to allow the House at any time


to discuss the matter. Yet how can we influence the Home Secretary on matters on which he is bound to secrecy? I support the Amendment for the reasons I have given, and because we have never been driven to anything of this sort in our history. The Home Secretary has been very much interested in Irish affairs. If this had not been so serious a Debate, I should have liked to refer to that. We have never been driven to this sort of thing before in connection with Ireland. We had our serious troubles in Ireland in 1922 and 1923. We illegally deported Art O'Brien. That matter was brought up in the House of Lords—not the judicial body, but the legislative assembly. I remember Lord Grey making a speech in which he said that their lordships ought to affirm the general principle that the Government should not have power to deport without trial, and he moved an Amendment. Again, when Ireland was in a state of turmoil—it was just after a party of British soldiers had been shot at Queenstown—the Government appointed a committee to inquire as to what regulations should be made. The members of the committee were Mr. George Talbot, the present Lord Runciman and Lord Chelmsford. Having examined the regulations in the light of that state of affairs, they said:
What, then are the defects in English criminal procedure and in the powers of the police which, it is said, impede the prevention and punishment of such crimes? We need not refer to such difficulties as are necessary incidents of any system which requires proof in open court and forbids the detention of accused or suspected persons without trial. These cardinal principles of English law do undoubtedly make less easy the prevention and punishment of crime; but encroachment upon them cannot be justified unless by some exceptional and overwhelming anxiety, such as cannot, in our opinion, be said to exist in the present circumstances.
They went on to recommend two special powers—a power of search and a power of obtaining information. We have faced that situation of terrorism many times, and we should have learned something about it. Excessive severity, the appearance of injustice, only increases the terrorism. It is on the ground that the Government must appear to the world to be administering perfect justice that I support the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The Members of the Com-

mittee who heard the reply of my right hon. Friend to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will, whether they agree with him or not, agree that he dealt very fully and clearly with the issues of the Amendment and his reasons for rejecting it. There is not much that I have to add to the general case which he then made. I would, however, like to recall the Committee, before coming to the specific points raised, to the situation which has led to the introduction of the Bill and the procedure under it, because this Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman said, goes to the heart of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft), in a speech which seemed to disregard a very large number of the material facts, spoke of things which had gone on well for 500 years and said that he preferred to keep them as they were. The position is that, under the ordinary police and criminal procedure, what he must have known, in spite of the fact that last February they had the most complete knowledge of the existence of this conspiracy and that arrests were made in February and January, and have been made since, and that nobody suggests that the police have not been alert and efficient in dealing with these matters, we still have a succession of acts of violence in pursuance of this conspiracy. I agree that there has been one, or, I think, two explosions to-day, but that does not in any way mean that we should not scrutinise the Bill with care, or that we should legislate in a panic, but it does show that the ordinary methods of preventing crime and dealing with a conspiracy have broken down.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the Attorney-General has rather misrepresented what I said. I was not talking about the ordinary procedure. All I was asking was for third party judgment and the entitlement of a man to put his case.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend or to anybody else. I was dealing with the impression which I certainly got from his speech. I am coming to the specific points later. My right hon. Friend said there are a number of people about whom the police are satisfied, and believe they can satisfy my right hon. Friend, as being concerned with the preparations for these acts, but who could not be proved in a court of law to be guilty of, or concerned


with, an existing offence within the words of the Sub-section. As everybody knows, in some of these cases you cannot disclose the source of your information without not only imperilling, in the sense that you might not get any more information, but endangering someone's life. You have to be careful not only not to disclose the name, but in some cases not to disclose the nature of the information which it would be perfectly easy for somebody to trace to the source. That is the kind of problem that has led to the introduction of this Bill and to my right hon. Friend asking for these special powers.
I think there has been a certain misconception as to one sentence or two which fell from my right hon. Friend. He has not any objection to a man with legal experience being the person nominated under the section. The objection is to the sort of judicial procedure embodied in the Amendment. Some right hon. and hon. Members have expressed the view that they think that someone with legal or judicial experience would be the most appropriate appointment under the proposed Amendment. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking—I do not think that there is any precedent in an Act of Parliament that the Home Secretary should appoint after consultation with the leaders of the Opposition—that he would be ready to consult or to receive suggestions as to suitable persons. He said that the whole point is that the person nominated should inspire confidence, and, if it is the general feeling of the Committee that persons with legal or judicial experience would be most likely to inspire the confidence which he desired should be inspired, then he would certainly have regard to that view. As I have said, the objection is not to the judicial or legal mind operating on this case, but to the legal procedure envisaged by the Amendment, and one or two other Amendments which have come under discussion. I think there was great force, though he put it in a slightly different way from that of my right hon. Friend, in the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). It would, in our view, be a wrong position in which to put a judge.
This is, and in our view should remain, an executive act. It is an act to be taken admittedly on evidence which cannot be

produced and sifted according to the ordinary legal rules by which evidence has to be sifted if you are having a judicial inquiry. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that a legal mind is perfectly capable of dealing with matters on the basis of evidence other than evidence admissible in law. In fact, most of us take the vast majority of the actions in our ordinary lives not on legal evidence, but on a mass of evidence wholly inadmissible in a court of law. Therefore, there is a difficulty in acting on evidence other than legal evidence. There is no objection to the legal mind, but there is objection, in our view, to bringing in a judge as a judge. The hon. Gentleman said with force that however much you pare down the power of the judge as a judge, it still remains that, if he has to have power, some responsibility must pass from the Home Secretary to him. My right hon. Friend took the example of a case where he believed a man ought to be deported, and the judge said, "No." It turned out that the Home Secretary was right, and that the man was in fact concerned with the preparation of these acts. The judge thought the evidence insufficient, and the Home Secretary thought that it was sufficient. That seems to me an impossible solution.

Mr. Foot: That would arise under the Amendment of the Home Secretary.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir; the Amendment of the Home Secretary has been carefully drawn to leave the responsibility entirely with the Home Secretary. He can under the Amendment if he so chooses, disregard the report. It is the advice to him, and the safeguard is—and it is a real safeguard—that the whole case will be investigated by a person of independent mind and independent of the Executive, and the Home Secretary will have the benefit of his advice. He cannot under that Amendment shift any responsibility from his own shoulders on to those of his advisers, whereas if you have a judge as a judge, it is inevitable that there should be that transfer of responsibility.

Mr. Foot: In the vast majority of cases the Home Secretary will act upon the advice of the examiner whom he has appointed, and the example which the Home Secretary gave of the man against whom an order was not made and who


afterwards blew up the Houses of Parliament may equally well occur under that procedure.

The Attorney-General: In the large majority of cases he will act on their advice, but he does not get rid of his responsibility because he has been advised. Under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment that is not so. You cannot attack the Home Secretary when he has not made a deportation order. He could not make a deportation order when the judge had reported against it, but he could under his own Amendment. That is the answer to the procedure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford in asking for a third party judgment. That definite expression shows that the Home Secretary is to be responsible to a third party. That would be wrong. It would be taking away from the Home Secretary the responsibility that he should have, and putting it upon shoulders upon which it ought not to be put. This House will have no control, and therefore we think such a safeguard is unsatisfactory, and for these reasons we reject it and ask the Committee to reject Amendments involving some form of judicial veto.
We believe that the Amendment that we have put down is a real safeguard. We think it is desirable—and I wholly agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn)—that when you are faced with matters such as this you should do everything possible to satisfy the people that you are going to take these exceptional powers with fairness and administer them with the object of fulfilling the primary purpose, which is the preservation of law and order. He referred to the great experience which, in the course of our history, we have had in different parts of the world in these matters, and he, I know, had personal experience of them when at the India Office. To judge in the light of that experience. I suggest to the Committee that this Measure is a very moderate Measure. This only allows an expulsion or prohibition order to be made in cases where men belong to some country other than this country. The period of an order under this Bill is only two years. It is not a perpetual exile as some people have suggested. The

Measure is of a limited kind. I hope that I may have induced the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment. At any rate, I have done my best to put before the Committee our reasons for believing that in practice and in principle the introduction of the words which the hon. Member suggests would be wrong, I hope the Committee will feel that my right hon. Friend has gone as far as he could reasonably have gone to provide a safeguard for independent investigation.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Bill only provides for exile for two years. On Monday, he agreed with me that it provided for perpetual exile

The Attorney-General: I said that I would look into it, I said that I thought it was two years, but as the hon. and learned Member took a different view, I did not want to be dogmatic, and I said that I would look into it.

Mr. Pritt: The words that I heard were "Yes, I agree." It does not however matter what was said on Monday but what stands now, and as I understand it when an order is made for expulsion it is an "uno ictu" order for expulsion lasting for ever unless it is revoked; and even the power to revoke ends at the end of two years. It is true that the power to inflict a penalty for breaking the order will disappear at the same time, but as the Bill stands that order and any disgrace that may be attached to it—these men may think it an honour rather than a disgrace, although I regard it as a disgrace—will stand, and the disgrace will be that there will be the order for ever.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I had not intended to take part in these discussions, but after listening to the Debate and realising that we are discussing some very fundamental issues I should like to put my point of view before the Committee. It is impossible to move an Amendment incorporating what I want to say. Of course, I was not a Member of this House in 1870 or before then, but my earliest recollections go back to the blowing up of the wall of Clerkenwell Prison and to the shootings in Manchester, for which three Irishmen paid the penalty with their lives. Then followed a long series of years when, in Ireland, and to a lesser extent


in this country, we were subjected to coercion Bills of various descriptions. What we are doing to-day is playboy legislation compared with that which was passed during the Land League disorders in Ireland.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) and I heard the argument of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) I could not help feeling that all this is just beating the air. You will not put this thing down by legislation of this sort. You are dealing with people who are fanatics and who believe that Ireland is kept divided by this country and that Ireland would be united but for our power. I cannot argue that now, but I would appeal to the Committee. I realise that we must maintain law and order and protect the citizens from this sort of outrage that is taking place, but there is always some deep-seated reason that makes men risk life and liberty in this manner. It was the same with the women suffrage movement and it is the same in India. I would implore the Committee not to be satisfied with passing this legislation, not to be satisfied with this legal argument whether it is best to have a judge or somebody else to advise the Home Secretary. I know I am getting out of order, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I could not get into the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think you will forgive me, because it is the kernel of the Bill that we are discussing. I should like to appeal to the Government and to my hon. Friends to make a determined effort by trying to do what is the only thing that van be done, namely, to get the Northern and Southern Irelanders together to discuss how they can remove these grievances in the only sensible manner, by becoming decent Irishmen one towards another.

6.36 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: There is one part of our Amendment with which the right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt. I am not going to insist on the exact words of our Amendment, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the principle involved and see whether there is not some way in which it might be incorporated in his own Amendment. The right hon. Gentlemen have led the Committee to assume that nobody is to be

dealt with under this Bill unless he is, in fact, taking part in a conspiracy. I would like them to face fairly and squarely the fact that some people will be dealt with under this Bill who are entirely innocent. [Hon. Members: "How?"] Because it is the essence of the right hon. Gentleman's case that the police cannot deal with this matter if they are asked to comply with the very high standards of proof which are required in our criminal courts—standards of proof which are so high that we can say that out of a thousand people who are convicted of high crimes probably not one was innocent the whole time. Therefore, the Ministers are asking the Committee to allow action to be taken against individuals on a lower standard of proof. In the case of high crime such as burglary, the country is prepared to allow a number of guilty burglars to be acquitted rather than run the risk of one innocent person being convicted. Now we are asked, in view of the great danger to life and property involved in the present conspiracy, that we shall slide down to a lower standard of proof and that we shall not run the risk of even a few of these conspirators being at large.
By adopting a lower standard of proof, surely we are doing something which makes it almost certain that although in each single case the Home Secretary may say "The suspicion is good enough for me," yet in the course of action taken under the Bill a number—the number may be small—of wholly innocent people will be tampered with. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite have an extraordinary confidence in their own judgment if they can be quite certain that with a lower standard of proof it will not be the case that a man who is wholly innocent will be suspected by the police. What will be the position of an Irishman who has not been living here for the full 20 years but has been living an ordinary, decent life, and he suddenly receives notice of an expulsion order which has been made against him? He will have to take advantage of the Amendment which the Minister has put before us. What can he do if he has no more knowledge than that the order has been made against him? The only thing he can do is to write on a piece of paper and send it to the Home Secretary saying that he is entirely innocent. He can do nothing else. Surely,


in order that he may have a chance of submitting his case to the Home Secretary he must have more information than that.
There is nothing in the Bill which requires anybody to tell him whether he is accused of preparing an act of violence, instigating an act of violence or harbouring a suspected person. Without revealing any source of evidence, it ought to be possible to give the man some information as to what he is supposed to have done, so that he may be able to state his case to the Home Secretary. If he is given no information, he can merely say: "I am completely innocent of any of the acts charged against me," but in nine cases out of ten the Home Secretary will say that that is frivolous. I submit, therefore, that there ought to be one further stage, so that the person on whom such a notice is served may ask for an amplification of the reasons for which the notice has been served upon him, and after receiving them he may be able to deal with them in writing to the Home Secretary. If that is not done, you are not giving the man a chance. In the case of an entirely innocent man who I submit will, through inadvertence, be charged—and I submit that innocent men will be charged in order that you may make certain that you are charging the guilty—you will be aggravating the bitterness felt already, if such a man is not given a better chance of dealing with the charge that it made against him. He ought to be given such information that he can send to the Home Secretary an answer which will be coherent and which the Home Secretary will not be able to dismiss by merely saying that it is frivolous. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to adopt some of the essence of part of our Amendment.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I wish to intervene for only a very short time but it seems to me after listening to the speeches that one might think the Home Secretary was proposing to do away with the old maxim that a man has to be proved guilty or else he is regarded as innocent. All that my right hon. Friend is proposing is that if he is satisfied that an individual is a party to one form or other of this criminal conspiracy he shall be required to leave this country for a period, or he may have to register with the police, or if he is out of the country and is seeking to come in,

he shall be debarred from entry. It is an absolute distortion of the facts to hear all this scientific discussion as to whether or not an innocent man may be adjudged guilty on inadequate information. There is no other country where such a discussion as that we are having this afternoon could take place, seeing that within the last two hours a dozen innocent people have been killed or wounded.

Sir R. Acland: What difference does that make?

Mr. Radford: The hon. Member shall hear now. I will give him his reply.

Mr. Max ton: I am interested in the speech of the hon. Member, but is it not a little out of order on this Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am bound to say that it seems to me we are getting on to subjects which are not quite in order on the Amendment. The Amendment is very wide, but we must not go outside, and I think the hon. Member is now introducing elements which may engender heat.

Mr. Radford: I do not want to trespass beyond the bounds of order, and I will conclude by saying that I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. I do not know whether I shall be in order in answering the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) who asked, "What has this to do with it?" The right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) made a reference to the Bill making an inroad into our liberties. What about the liberties of those people who cannot go to a left luggage office and leave their luggage there without the danger of being blown to pieces? That is a danger to our liberties. Before I resume my seat I should like the Home Secretary to know that ordinary, plain Englishmen are behind him in the very moderate action he is taking under the Bill.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, as most of the arguments for and against the Amendment have already been made. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) and the Attorney-General were stretching the matter a little far when they suggested that the responsibility of the Home Secretary to this House was any safeguard of the liberties


of any man. If the psychology which has just been displayed is any indication of the mood of the House, then, if further outrages take place, what chance is there of our raising any individual case here? The Home Secretary will say, "I am satisfied that he is a suspect and should be deported, and in the interests of public safety I cannot disclose the information." In fact, the individual has no protection at all, and hon. Members would be unable to exert any influence on the Home Secretary. It is unworthy of the Attorney-General to suggest that the responsibility of the Home Secretary to this House has any practical significance in that regard. The Home Secretary is responsible where a principle is involved, but where it is a matter of the treatment of an individual there is no chance of any hon. Member exerting any influence at all.
But suppose that, after these powers are obtained, the outrages continue? I imagine that the Home Secretary will use these powers with great diffidence and care. He will satisfy himself in every instance that he has good grounds for suspecting the persons who are being dealt with, although the kind of evidence which would satisfy him is rather difficult at the moment to distinguish. Nevertheless, he will not use these powers excessively. But let us suppose that the outrages continue, that these powers are ineffective in suppressing them. What will be the result? The pressure upon the police will be so great that the Home Secretary will be bound to relax his vigilance, and more and more people will be drawn in, many innocent people may be deported. We all have in our constituencies large numbers of people who belong to the nation involved. Feelings will be stirred up and, instead of dealing with this problem, we shall be creating a very much wider one. In the interests of the police I think they should be protected from the temptation to exercise these powers, because in the circumstances they might exercise them in such a way as to raise far greater difficulties.
It seems to me that the suggestion made by the Home Secretary in his proposed Amendment will have to be amplified a great deal before there is much value in it. Is the individual to whom these cases are to be referred to have access to all the information which the

Home Secretary will possess? The Home Secretary can, of course, refuse to refer a case to the investigating agent, but if he refers a case has the individual, that is the investigating person, power under the proposal to receive all the information in the possession of the Home Secretary? I presume so, because the Home Secretary might not otherwise be able to convince the investigating agent that an order should be made, but there is no power to enable the investigating agent to require the information. In the next place, is the investigating agent to be told the name of the informer? There is the point that if the accused person is informed of the name of the informer there might be terrorism and intimidation against the informer, but cannot the investigating agent be told the name of the informer without the information leaking through to the accused person? There is nothing in the proposed Amendment to enable the investigating agent himself to interrogate the witnesses against the man.
It seems to me that the investigating agent should have additional powers if he is to form a proper judgment on the matter, and I ask hon. Members to realise that unless the investigating agent is armed with these powers, then the accused person is not, in fact, receiving the protection which the Committee thinks he should receive. It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the powers of the judiciary. When we speak of the powers of the judiciary we are speaking of the liberties of the subject, and here is an attempt on the part of the Home Secretary to bring in a third-party judgment. If that third-party judgment is to be exercised by a man without any power of cross-examination or power to call witnesses, then it is a protection which is not of much value. I hope when we come to consider the Home Secretary's proposal we shall have some improvements in regard to these details. I think it would be far better if the Amendment were accepted. The police should always be protected from temptation of this kind, and I am afraid that in a time of stress and panic these powers will be exercised in such a way as to widen and not mitigate the problem which we are considering.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to put before the Committee a matter of the very greatest


importance, and I hope that every hon. Member will see to it that the Home Secretary gives a favourable answer to the question I am going to put. The Attorney-General has pointed out that an individual can be arrested on information given, but the information will not be disclosed nor will the name of the informer. If the information were disclosed it might be possible to trace it back to the informer. I want to ask the Home Secretary if he will put something in his proposed Amendment that will guarantee that in no circumstances will an agent provocateur be used? I refer the Home Secretary to the tragic case of the Wheeldon family. An agent provocateur was sent there and he lived in their home. He made suggestions about attacking the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the late Mr. Arthur Henderson, and after he had made these suggestions he got them to talk. He reported them, and as a result Mrs. Wheeldon got 10 years and her daughter and son five years each. There never has been in the history of this country such a gross and malignant

travesty of justice. In 1916 the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was in Edinburgh as a deportee. An hon. Member of this House went to see him and he also saw the military authorities. When he saw the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs he said, "I have seen a document about you that would justify your being shot." The evidence was provided by lies and by informers; there was not a word of truth in it. I ask the Home Secretary very seriously, will he put something in his Amendment which will guarantee that in no circumstances will an agent provocateur be used?

Sir S. Hoare: I can give the hon. Member the guarantee which he desires at once. I hate the very idea of an agent provocateur, and I am strongly opposed to any such thing. Any authority I have will be used against any such proceeding.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 212.

[Division No. 285]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.]


Acland, Sir R.T.D.
Grenfell, O. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar,S.)
Griffith, J. (Llanelly)
Pools, C. C.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Groves, T. E.
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beechman, N, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Silkin, L.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Brawn, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sloan, A.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cap., T.
John, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. Q.
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. j. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. Merthyr)
Lee, F.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. D. (Cardigan)
MacMillan, HI. (Western Isles)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Foot.




NOES


Acland-Troyte., Lt. Col. G. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, O.


Adams, t. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Procter, Major H. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hambro, A. V.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Harbord, Sir A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Balniel, Lord
Haslam, Sir J- (Bolton)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Barrie, Sir C.C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Remer, J. R.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R, T.
Hepworth, J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bracken, B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Brass, Sir W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. O. (Londonderry)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hopkinton, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham), W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hunloke, H. P.
Samuel M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Hunter, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Jones, Sir C W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Scott, Lord William


Cary, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cayzer. Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cazalet, Thelms (Islington, E.)
Kellett, Major E. O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Simmonds, O. E.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univ's.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Christie, J. A.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kimball, L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Snadden, W. McN.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Letch, Sir J. W.
Somerset, T.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leas-Jones, J.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Croft, Brig-Gen. Sir H. Page
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Stanley. Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Storey, S.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Strickland, Captain W. F.


De la Bére, R.
Little, J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodd, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Doland, G. F.
Looker-Lampson, Com dr. O. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Tifchfield, Marquess of


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. 4.. (Hull)


Edge, Sir W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Markham, S. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Errington, E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Flaming, E. L,
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Sir F. (Leylon, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wise, A. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Han. Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Glyn, Major Sir R. C.
Morrison, Rt. Han. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Goldie, N. B.
Nail, Sir J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nivan-Sptnce, Major B. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Granvillo, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Mr. Munro and Captain McEwen.


Grldlty, Sir A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Taranse J,



Grigg Sir E. W. M
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

7.6 p.m

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move in page i, line 11, after "is," to insert "reasonably."

Sir S. Hoare: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Member, but if

he will allow me to do so, may I say that I am willing to accept this Amendment?

Mr. Benn: I am not obstructing and we are trying to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman, but does the insertion


of the word "reasonably" mean that someone will be in a position to go to a court and say that the Home Secretary has made such an order but has not made it reasonably in respect of the policy on Irish affairs?

Sir R. Acland: Can the Attorney-General give us some information on what the Amendment means?

The Attorney-General: It makes clear that the Home Secretary is required to be reasonably satisfied having regard to what is put before him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page I, line 12, to leave out "in his opinion."
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. In my view it is rather linked up with the words "reasonably satisfied." If it is accepted the Clause will run:
If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain, not being a person who is and has been, throughout the last preceding twenty years ordinarily resident.
If the satisfaction has to be reasonable it should not be recommitted to a mere opinion, and the reasonable satisfaction should be left to cover both the question of the person being 20 years ordinarily resident and the question of the person being concerned. I am, therefore, asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider accepting the removal of the words "in his opinion." It will not, of course, remove the matter from his judgment, but it will leave it plain that his reasonable satisfaction is required in connection with both questions.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quite sure that I follow the hon. and learned Member's reasons or his explanation of this Amendment. I think that the words "in his opinion" refer only to the period of residence of a man who is the subject of the Clause, and have nothing whatever to do with any acts which may have made him suspect in the eyes of the law. The question of whether a person is or has been resident throughout the period of 20 years in this country is a question of fact which is easily capable of exact proof in the ordinary way, and I think that the words "in his opinion" are unnecessary. The question

of whether a person belongs to the category of persons who may be dealt with under this Section should be strictly proved. My name is down to the Amendment, and I support it because in my opinion the words "in his opinion" leave a question of fact to be determined as though it were a question of opinion when it is nothing of the kind.

7.12 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I think that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to meet the point as put by the hon. and learned Member for Hammersmith North (Mr. Pritt) but it would not be met by the Amendment he proposes, and if my hon. and learned Friend will leave it at that, before the Bill passes through all its stages we will try to meet the point of leaving it to the Secretary of State. But the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is, of course, a quite different one and that we are not prepared to meet. The hon. Gentleman put it as being a pure question of fact as to whether a person is "ordinarily resident." He has not, perhaps, had quite the same misery of acquaintance with Income Tax Acts as some of us, or he would know that books have been written on this topic, and the number of the judgments on the subject is legion. I think the real answer to the question he put is that this would be, of course, one of the matters which would come under the consideration of the examiner who is being introduced by the subsequent Amendment of the Home Secretary which we have not yet reached.

Mr. Pritt: I am almost certain I can accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests if he will say if this is the sort of thing he has in mind—" If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain is not a person who is and has been throughout the last preceding 20 years ordinarily resident in Great Britain," etc.

The Solicitor-General: Without committing myself, that is the kind of thing we have in mind.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement not merely with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite but with the hon. and learned Gentleman


who sits beside me. I can see the force of the argument which led the Home Secretary to resist any suggestion that in the circumstances he could submit to the test of ordinary judicial proof the reasons which led him to take a view that a man should have an expulsion order or a registration order served upon him. But I cannot see how or why any of those objections apply to the question of where a man has been ordinarily resident during the last 20 years. I know that the matter of ordinary residence is not a simple thing, and I know there have been a number of legal decisions on the point, but however difficult it may be sometimes, I do not think it is difficult in ordinary cases. There it is simplicity itself. However difficult it may be in some exceptional cases, it is still capable of proof, and it is the sort of question which the Government can prove in the ordinary way in a court of law, under ordinary judicial principles. I think this is a point of substance. With regard to a question of facts of this kind, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should be exempted from proving his facts in the ordinary way, particularly as the special position in this matter would be in no way prejudiced by his having so to do.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I should like to say a word or two in support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It seems to me that the two issues are entirely different. The issue that has to be decided when the Secretary of State is making up his mind whether or not to grant an expulsion order is a matter very largely of conjecture. These questions of suspicion can be nothing more. The right hon. Gentleman has to decide whether, on the slender information, it may be, in his possession, a person is probably associated with this particular conspiracy. That is something which does not lend itself to exact examination. But when the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of 20 years' residence, it is something that can be definitely proved to the satisfaction of any ordinary tribunal. My hon. Friends and I have a new Clause on the Paper in which we suggest that on this one issue of 20 years' residence, it should be possible to appeal from the Home Secretary's order to a judge, and that the judge should be entitled to quash

the order if he finds that, in fact, the person against whom the order is made is outside the class of persons whom Parliament intended to include in the Act. In those circumstances, I wish to support the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, and consider whether they cannot leave it to any ordinary court, at any rate in the last resort, to decide a pure question of fact of the sort which the courts have to determine every day.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "five."
Sub-section (2) of the Clause covers only those who have been ordinarily resident in Great Britain for less than 20 years, or, to put it another way, any person who can prove that he has lived in this country for more than 20 years is outside the scope of Clause 1, Subsection (2). I should like to ask the Home Secretary why he has fixed on a dividing line of 20 years. There might be cases of one person who had lived in this country for 21 years, and another person who had lived in this country for 19 years. The first person might have been born in Ireland and lived most of his life in Ireland but have been in this country for more than 20 years, and so would be outside the scope of the Subsection. The other person might have been born in this country, he might be 19 years of age, and therefore, he would be within the limit of 20 years and would be brought within the scope of the Bill. I realise that there may be a case for concentrating on those who have come to this country more recently, and that the ringleaders of this campaign of terrorism are more likely to be those who have more recently come from across the water. I should have thought that that would involve taking the view that there may be many people, resident in this country for 10, 15, 18 or 19 years, who may be the rank and file of the movement, and not the persons principally responsible for the campaign. In speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Home Secretary said:


The individuals with whom we shall be dealing will in the main be recent arrivals to these shores.
Strangely enough, he went on to say:
That is the reason we have put in the Bill a 20 years limit." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1939; col. 1053; Vol. 350.]
I should have thought that a person who had lived here for 19 years was not a recent arrival in this country. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. Either he has a reason for fixing the limit of 20 years, or he is not concerned merely with recent arrivals, because it is quite ludicrous to suggest that a person who has been in this country for 19 years is a recent arrival. In the Amendment I suggest that the period should be five years. I believe that the Home Secretary would be able to cast his net over all those who are responsible for the campaign if the limit was five years instead of 20 years.

7.22 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: The period of 20 years is an arbitrary decision to a great extent. We had to consider what period of time we would take. We were anxious to make it clear in the Bill that its scope extended, not to established British citizens in this country, but to persons who have come into the country within recent times. The question then arose as to whether we should take a period of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. What should be the period? Without going into details, I can tell hon. Members that I looked very carefully into the type of cases with which we might have to deal. I looked into specific cases. On the whole, far the greater number of the suspects we have in mind are people who have come into this country in quite recent times, the last few years. At the same time, there are some who have been resident within these shores for a longer period, and in some cases they are perhaps not less dangerous on that account. If we are to make this Bill effective, I advise the Committee to accept the 20 years' period. I can give hon. Members the undertaking that we should naturally look with great care, perhaps with specially great care, at cases of men and women who have resided here for a very long time. Obviously, the fact that they have roots in this country and so on would have to be considered. We should have to take all those facts into account, but hon. Members would

be taking a considerable risk, and the Home Secretary would be taking a considerable risk, if this limit of time were reduced, even though the actual number of suspects involved was a very limited one.

Mr. Bellenger: May I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman? Suppose that there were a person whom he had reason to suspect, and that person had lived here just over 20 years, could that person be dealt with under the Bill?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: There are two things I should like to say. In the first place, the Home Secretary has very frankly told us, what a good many people know, that there is a list of people who are suspected and in respect of whom the right hon. Gentleman can see hopes that, in a few days' time, he will become satisfied of certain facts, and that the 20 years' period rather than a shorter period has been chosen because some of the people on the list would not have been covered if there had been a period less than 20 years. While, of course, there are times when we have to do that sort of thing, it is a very dangerous thing to do, and it is something which ought not to pass without at any rate some mention being made of it.
The other point to which I want to refer has been mentioned already. I do not like the Bill, but I want to be fair about it. The Bill very fairly recognises, in Sub-sections (2) and (3), the distinction between people who really are, in the matter of their daily life, surroundings, friends, chance of earning a living and so on, domiciled in England, and people who are guests or visitors, or are not exclusively rooted in England. The Bill recognises this in the very real sense that it says that some of the people who are regarded as being concerned in this are nevertheless to be regarded as having their roots in England to such an extent that the only thing to be done in their case—although it is serious enough in a way—is that they shall be required to register and report, but if they want to blow up this building or some other building, they will be left tolerably free to do so. The Government have gone some way towards recognising that distinction. If that be so, surely a period of 20 years is far too long. It is all very well to


say that the right hon. Gentleman will be very reasonable; but whenever we ask him to be what we think is very reasonable, he at once replies by asking, "How can I take any risks in the present state of affairs? "He says that if he allowed the question of suspicion to be handled by a High Court judge, he might be responsible for having the House of Commons blown up. In these circumstances, we are forced to regard this Measure as one that will be used up to the hilt. I suggest that as a distinction between people who have real roots in this country and those who have not, the period of 20 years is a ludicrous one.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I wish to make it clear that we are not attempting to stop the progress of this Bill. We are really trying to prevent innocent people getting into trouble. That is the only purpose we have. Let me give a case in point. It is the case of a girl named Norah Glenn, who was charged at Manchester. She is 18 years of age and therefore would come within the compass of this Bill. The police were convinced that she was guilty, otherwise they would not have charged her. Under these powers, being 18 years of age, she would have been put away.

The Attorney-General: Not put away

Mr. Benn: She would have been sent away; she would have been deported. The Attorney-General probably knows the case. This girl was charged with a number of others at the police court. When the case came to the Assizes a month later, she was acquitted. That is the sort of difficulty which will arise. We are not trying to put difficulties in the way of the Home Secretary. We want to help him by calling attention to the difficulties that will arise. Surely he can see that, although he must fix a time, this period of 20 years will give rise to difficulties. Here is the case of this girl of 18. Unquestionably she would have fallen under the mischief of this Bill if it had existed at that time. What does the Home Secretary propose to do in a case like that? If I may express my own personal opinion, I do not think it is for us to fix any period of years. I think that once you start with this sort of business, you must allow the Home Secretary to decide, but a case like that which I

have quoted must give rise to serious misgivings.

7.3 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: Of course it is possible to quote individual cases in relation to almost every conceivable he kind of conditions. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the case which has quoted, that these powers are permissive, and I cannot believe that any Home Secretary would order the deportation of a young person of that kind, who really had no connection with any other part of the world. In that kind of case a deportation order would not be made. The kind of case which has to be taken into account is the case of the man of say, 45 years of age, who has been here for 20 years and who may be a very-dangerous terrorist. It is towards a case of that kind that this provision is directed and not towards cases of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think this matter is as simple as the right hon. Gentleman would make it appear. I agree that he would not desire to do anything unreasonable, but there will be other Home Secretaries and there may be other periods of panic. The words in the Measure are perfectly plain. They provide for a period of 20 years. What is the good of saying that this Bill is intended to apply only to persons of the age of 45 and that persons who, by reason of the date of their birth, could not possibly come within this exempting provision, will necessarily be exempt? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman's advisers reported to him that a person had brought himself, in every detail, within the liability to an expulsion order, but that he was only 18 years of age. Would the right hon. Gentleman feel that he should not make an order in that case? I feel sure that he would make an order. Yet that would be a person who could not possibly be exempt by reason of this 20-year provision. Suppose the case of another person, aged 21 and born in this country, who has never been out of this country. He is not within the Bill but the right hon. Gentleman has none of these special powers in his case, even though that person may have done all the things which, if he had been born in Ireland, or had lived part of his life in


Ireland, would have made him amenable to this special legislation.
It is not good enough to say that such persons are not being put away. I do not read the Clause in that way. If an expulsion order is served upon a person, the right hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to facilitate that person's withdrawal from this country. It is true that under a later Clause he has power to do so but he need not do so. He can leave the onus of getting himself out of the country, upon the person who has been served with an order, "requiring him to leave Great Britain." Suppose such a person wants to obey the order but cannot, because no other country will take him. He has then committed an offence under this Measure and is liable to five years' penal servitude. It was said earlier that two categories of persons were affected. In view of the Amendment which has first been accepted there is a third category now. There is the class of person of whom the right hon. Gentleman is "reasonably satisfied" that they have not been ordinarily resident in this country for 20 years. It is not necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to prove that those persons have not been here for 20 years. He need only be "reasonably satisfied" that they have not been here for 20 years, though in fact they may have been here for that period. Considering the number of persons involved and the unfairness which may be caused by this provision, I submit that the period of 20 years is too long.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: Perhaps the Home Secretary would help the Committee in regard to the specific case of young people born in this country who have not attained the age of 20 years. These are the very sort of persons liable to be influenced by those who desire to promote this campaign of terrorism. If they commit an offence under this Measure, are they to be asked to leave the country, and, if so, where are they expected to go? This is a very special case and I ask the Home Secretary, before coming to a final decision on the Amendment, to give us some assistance on that point.

7.39 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: It is difficult for me to tie myself down rigidly in regard to a form of procedure which must be adapted to particular cases. With that general

reservation I can tell the hon. and learned Member that in cases of the kind he has mentioned it is most improbable that we should make a deportation order. Upon the face of it, those persons would have nowhere to go, and if they have nowhere to go there is no point in making a deportation order against them. I think hon. Members must assume that, setting aside the present occupant of this office, Home Secretaries are bound to behave reasonably and sensibly over these matters, if they are given these powers for the exercise of which they will be responsible to Parliament.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I am concerned about the case of the young man under 20 who has been born in England and who does not know anything about any other country. I want to say straight away and to be quite clear about it, that having regard to what is going on, I have no objection whatever to regulations being made. I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension about that, and I am not saying it with any reservations. All I am concerned about is that injustice should not be done to innocent people. The innocent people are the only people I am concerned about. The others must take the responsibility on their own shoulders. I understand that this Clause gives the Home Secretary the power of deportation and that, if there is not deportation there may be imprisonment. A young misguided man may come into this country and get into touch with families in this country. You may have the case of boys or girls born here of Irish parents and resident here and having no connection with anywhere else, although their sympathies may be over the water. Are those people to be deported out of this country and alienated from the only home they know? The question of association enters into this. A boy or girl of 20 having no connection whatever with this matter, may, by the very fact of having visited certain people, be brought within this Bill, and made liable to deportation. That seems an absurd proposition and I do not know how any Member of the Committee can regard it in an easy fashion.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is now getting rather wide of the Amendment and is discussing the whole of Clause I.

Mr. Logan: With all due respect we are considering here a very important point, and all I wish to do is to ask that the case of the young person of 20 years of age should be considered. As it is, this seems a rather stiff proposition. I think some exceptions should be made, and that the Home Secretary would be well advised to give it further consideration.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: The Home Secretary said that if a young person were born here, a deportation order would not be made against him because there would be nowhere for him to go. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange before the Report stage to put definite words into the Bill making that clear? As I see it, the Home Office might take the view that a deportation order should be made. The young person would be unable to satisfy the order and would therefore go to prison. The, Home Office would be unable to go to the court and have the young person imprisoned on suspicion. They might be unable to prove a case against him in court. But in order to get that person out of the way, they would make a deportation order which could not be complied with and thus get the young person into prison by a roundabout way. The Home Secretary seems to signify disagreement. If it is the case that that would not be done in any case, I hope he will see that it is made statutorily impossible.

7.45 p.m

Mr. Pritt: I should like to ask the Home Secretary to consider, before the Report stage, whether, after the words "throughout the last preceding twenty years," he would not insert some such words as "or throughout his life, whichever period is the shorter"

Sir S. Hoare: I will look into that suggestion.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I wish the Home Secretary would say something more than that. I went through this Bill very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that this Clause might enable the Home Secretary to deport a Scotsman. My son was born in Scotland, and if he were interested in Irish matters, might he not be deported from his own native land? Surely it is not the Home Secretary's intention that a

law should pass on to the Statute Book of this country that enables a Minister to deport British-born British citizens to places unspecified.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is getting quite beyond the scope of the Amendment, which is to substitute the word "five" for the word "twenty."

Mr. Maxton: But if five years were substituted for 20 years, the points that we are raising would not arise. Surely the Home Secretary would not dream of deporting a child of five. We should assume that he would not regard such a child as a dangerous terrorist, but a young person of from 18 to 20 years of age, who is in what might be called the hobbledehoy stage, might be held to be just the kind of person to whom this sort of thing might appeal. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that some words will be found to make it impossible for him to deport a British-born British citizen.

7.48 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I can tell the Committee that the people whom we intend to deport are people whose home, speaking in a general term, is outside these shores. A check on any abuse of this power is that if people have not got a home or association of this kind, a deportation order will not work. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) may say to me, "What would happen supposing you attempted to deport one of these young people who had nowhere to go to, and who came back because there was no place to take him? "I am sure that in that case the Attorney-General would take that into account in deciding whether or not to institute a prosecution. I must repeat that in the interests of security we deem this period of 20 years necessary. If we did not have it, the net against these people would not be wide enough. We have to take into account the kind of anomalies that have been brought to our attention, and I will look into them to see whether we can meet them, but after the assurances that I have given as to the way in which this provision is going to be administered, I think the Committee ought to carry it.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Silver man: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether, when the Committee is discussing the legal effect of


the words of some Amendment, it is relevant to be told by the representative of the Government what the intentions are of this particular Administration. I do not raise that in any frivolous spirit, but it seems to me to be somewhat important. Time after time in these discussions, when it is pointed out that the strict meaning of words which we are discussing is to give certain powers to the Government, we are met with the reply, "You are perfectly right, but we do not intend to exercise those powers, and, therefore, you ought not to bother about them."

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no question of a point of Order here. The Home Secretary must make his statements in his own way, and the Chair cannot interfere.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, and of the fact that he has given an undertaking to consider the possibility of inserting an Amendment to Sub-section (2) to deal with the point of the position of an infant under 21 who has been born in, this country, but who may offend against the provisions of this legislation, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "is, "to insert "knowingly."

One of the two sub-heads, and the more serious qualification—

Sir S. Hoare: I will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Pritt: Then I will only formally move it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 1, after "is," insert "reasonably."

In line 4, after "is," insert "knowingly." —[Mr.Pritt.]

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "place of work."
If the Home Secretary has a person's full name, address, photograph and measurements, I do not see any reason

why his place of work should be brought into the matter at all, and the man be subjected to all the difficulties in relation to his employer and his fellow workers what do arise if police inquiries are being made at his place of employment.

Sir S. Hoare: We accept this Amendment, but I would point out that there might be cases in which the police would have to warn an employer. Speaking generally, we have no wish to carry on any kind of espionage on a man's work, and I will, therefore, accept this Amendment.

7.55 p.m

Mr. Eastwood: I would like to utter a word of warning to my right hon. Friend. Surely there can be no question here of any undue interference with a person at his place of work. This person, whoever he may be, who becomes suspect has to register certain information with the police, and there is no extra labour or inconvenience to him, whether he registers, together with his name and address, his place of work or not. Surely the whole essence of this Bill is to try and stop episodes such as happened to-day at King's Cross. We want the authorities to be able to get all the information that they can. A man comes under suspicion, and they should be able to get to know as soon as possible as much as they can about him. What happens after that is in the discretion of the Home Secretary, but I do hope that in this and in other matters he will not be too eager to make concessions, so as to limit his discretion, when, for all we know, he may have to come to us later on and ask for even greater powers than the present Bill gives him.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I would point out that this applies not only to people who are resident here, but to everybody

Mr. Eastwood: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to that fact. If I am going to be liable to be blown up, and that can be stopped, I would like to have it stopped whether the person concerned has been resident here for 20 years or for 50 years.

Mr. Benn: Hon. Members opposite, whenever a point is brought forward that they cannot argue, beg the question, and


they always say, "We are going to be blown up by a bomb. "I should like to point out—and I should be ashamed if I did not point it out—that any citizen of this country is liable to be put on ticket-of-leave in certain circumstances by the Home Secretary as a result of this Bill. We hope it will be transitory and specific, but there is the power. I am not objecting, but I think it would be shameful for a Member of this House to let that pass, without comment, that the Home Secretary now, by a lettre de cachet, can put everybody on ticket-of-leave if he is himself satisfied. Let us not assume that everyone who is trying to protect the rights of the innocent is in favour of the guilty.

7.59 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Eastwood),I agree fully that we want to make certain of catching these people, and I have not the least intention of accepting any Amendment which would have the effect of making that more difficult. I accepted this Amendment for this reason, that I think these words might create a lot of unnecessary suspicion and give the impression that the police are constantly going to get information from employers about employés, and, whether rightly or wrongly, the impression will get about that men are being dismissed for reasons that they do not understand. I would rather avoid that kind of suspicion if I can. I do not think the retention of these words is essential to the Bill. I feel that the police will be able to get the information that they want without an express provision of this kind, and, therefore, I think it wise, on the whole, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Maxton: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite did not intend to suggest that I moved this Amendment because I approve of railwaymen at King's Cross being injured.

Mr. Eastwood: I know the hon. Member too well.

Mr. Maxton: I do not think the fact that railwaymen are injured at King's Cross is a reason why shipyard labourers should be driven out of their employment on the Clyde. If the Home Secretary knows where a particular man is, where he is staying, and what his appearance

is, I think we can safely leave it in the hands of the authorities to deal with that person.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendment made: In page 2 line 14, after "is" insert "reasonably." —[Mr. Pritt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 2. —(Effect of expulsion orders and prohibition orders.)

8.5 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if a person upon whom such a notice has been served objects that there are no grounds, or no sufficient grounds, for the making of the order against him, he may within forty-eight hours of the service of the notice send to the Secretary of State representations in writing stating the reasons for his objection, and upon receiving such representations the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter for the advice of a person nominated by him (not being an officer of police or of any Government department) and the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection, and shall report to the Secretary of State who shall as soon as may be reconsider the case and either revoke the order or notify the person against whom it was made of his refusal to do so
I can assure the Committee that in my view this proposal would be a very real safeguard against an order against an innocent person. I want it to be a genuine safeguard and I shall certainly make it my business to see that it is worked in that spirit

8.7 p. m

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line I, after "notice" to insert "or notice of a registration order."
If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is inserted without these words, this qualified right of appeal is given in a case where an expulsion order is made, but no corresponding right of appeal is given where an order for registration is made. It will probably be admitted that, if it is right in principle to allow some sort of review in the case of an expulsion order, it is right to allow the same kind of review in the case of a registration order. For one reason it is even more important, because a registration order can be made against anyone. It is not a question of orders against residents, or normal


residents, in some other country. Any person in Great Britain may have a registration order made against him. Therefore, it will probably be agreed that, since it has been thought right to provide this additional machinery in the case of expulsion orders, it ought not to be withheld in the case of registration orders.

8.9 p. m

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend has only just seen the Amendment and I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking to accept it at the moment. The position of a registration order is, of course, quite different from a case where an expulsion or prohibition order is made. In the case of a registration order the person against whom it is made is required only to give notice of his movements and to register, and, generally being a person who is under the reasonable suspicion of the Secretary of State, to account for his movements from time to time, if required by the police. That is very different from the case in respect of which we put in this check on the administration in the case of an expulsion order. It would certainly complicate the Clause and add to the amount of investigation which would have to be done by the person my right hon. Friend has in mind, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared at the moment to accept an Amendment on these lines. I can, however, give an assurance that the matter will be looked into before the later stages of the Bill to see whether the objections are as formidable as we think they are at present.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. and learned Gentleman suffers from the disadvantage of never having been on ticket of leave and not knowing how very serious this form of restriction is. I have not been on it either, but I have known people who have. In actual practice being on ticket of leave is a very unpleasant thing indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman has recognised it in some of his legislation by generously making arrangements to abolish it. In giving consideration to the matter, as promised, I hope it will not be regarded as at all a light thing to be registered, finger-printed, measured and made to report. It is the easiest way in the world to lose your job, however sympathetically administered—and it is not always administered sympathetically.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, after "department," to insert:
serving upon the objector at the same time a short statement of the facts upon which the Secretary of State has relied in making the order.
I think it will commend itself to anyone that a person who is about to be expelled, or prohibited from coming here, should be given some statement of the facts on which the Home Secretary relies.

The Solicitor-General: I very much regret that my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to accept this proposal. As he has explained, necessarily a good deal of the material on which he will make up his mind will be material of a confidential character. To disclose the facts to the objector will necessarily put at risk the people who supplied the information in-some instances. It will be disclosing an avenue of information which it is most undesirable that we should disclose, and for that reason alone it is not possible to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but I would add this as a reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman. As I think the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) pointed out, when the matter comes before the referee, or whatever one cares to describe him as, it must be quite obvious that a gentleman of the calibre of my right hon. Friend has described will at once put before the objector the kind of case that is being made against him. It is proposed that the examiner or referee should be put in possession of all the relevant facts, and he will, no doubt, at an early stage of his interview with the objector make known, with discretion no doubt, to the objector the case that is going against him.

Mr. Benn: Would the Government accept an Amendment on those lines?

The Solicitor-General: I think it is preferable that the functions of the examiner should be left at large as much as possible. The confidence that the House and the country will feel in the examiner will be justified by the appointments or the-nominations which my right hon. Friend makes. If an examiner were, as my right hon. Friend suggested he might very well


be, a retired judicial officer with experience, it is quite clear that he would be unable to discharge his functions unless he notified in sufficient outline to the objector what was the case against him, but that is a very different matter from requiring him to serve on the objector a statement of the facts on which the Home Secretary is relying as the ground for making the Order. Therefore, I am afraid that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment cannot be accepted.

8.17 p. m

Mr. Pritt: In my humble submission this is really very bad indeed. For the benefit of hon. Members who are thronging the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman I will explain not only what this Amendment does but what the next Amendment, which I understand is not going to be accepted either, would do. The Bill as it stands simply says that the referee shall interview the objector and examine his objections. Literally that means that he shall say to him, "Thomas O'Flaherty, you are going back to Ireland. Will you tell me why you object?" Thomas O'Flaherty will object because he is not to be allowed to remain in England. It will not be as badly managed as that, of necessity, but the referee will say, "It is suggested that you come under this Act. I will read you the Clauses of it. What can you say?" and the man can only say, "I do not; will somebody tell me in what way it is suggested that I do come under it." Then says the hon. and learned Member, "Oh, the referee is sure to tell him the nature of the case." He is telling us that the Government refuse to tell the man the substance of the case but saying that the referee is sure to do it.
As the Clause stands, the referee does not even need to be told himself, and with a Home Secretary who says that he is terrified of this, that and the other, terrified of some "nark" or somebody being spotted and then being dealt with brutally, it is very likely that he will not tell the referee very much, Therefore, one says naturally, "If we are asked to abandon this not elementary right, but this tiny fragment of an elementary right, let us see whether there is something which could be put in the Bill to say that the referee shall be able to tell him." Accordingly we have proposed to add after

the statement in the Clause that the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objections the words "and all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State," and the hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that he will not have that Amendment either. Every single thing that the hon. and learned Gentleman says will surely be done is offered by us in Amendments and we are told that we are not to have them. When we reintroduce this Bill in a few years' time and call it the "Prevention of Financial Sabotage (Temporary Provisions) Bill," and put in the word "banker" instead of "person concerned" we shall get all sorts of objections from hon. Members opposite

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is undoubtedly tending to discuss this and the next manuscript Amendment together. I think that would not be inconvenient for him, but it is a little inconvenient for the Committee without their knowing what the second Amendment is.

Mr. Pritt: I have just read it, and I read it very slowly.

The Chairman: If the Committee assent to the two Amendments being discussed together I think that would be for the general convenience: only it is difficult for hon. Members to realise what the two Amendments would do from only having them read out

Mr. Pritt: I will read it again. It comes in at line 8. The Clause says that the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection, and we want to add words after the word "objection" so that it will read "the person so nominated shall interview the objector and examine his objection and examine all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State." I should like to point out that when we have some person as gentle as myself as Home Secretary dealing with bankers who have committed financial sabotage this is what we shall be able to do. We shall be able to say: "We are not bound to put any of the evidence before the referee, but certainly we will put the bulk of it. We will not put before him any of the evidence that really gives away the sources of our information, but we will put enough to convince him, and if he is convinced he will so report to our Secretary


of State and the reconsideration of the case will be quite a formal matter and we shall maintain the order." But if the referee reports back that on the evidence we have condescended to put before him he really does not think we have made out a good enough case we can then go back to our own room and sit down and say to ourselves, "Well, we have to reconsider the whole case, the responsibility is ours. On the evidence we put before him it may be that, perhaps, he is not unreasonable in recommending us to revoke the order, but we have something up our sleeve, and adding what he has seen to what he has not seen we shall maintain our order."
That will be making an absolute farce of the whole of this procedure, and it is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that we ought to trust him not to make a farce of it. For the moment I am dealing with the case on the footing that we do trust him not to make a farce of it, but unless these Amendments are adopted he is almost forced by his own statement to make a farce of it, because he is saying, "I will not give the man a short statement of the facts, because it might be dangerous and give the show away, and I will not undertake to put all the evidence in my possession before the referee, because that might indirectly give the show away." So he is saying that he must be left in the position, when the referee has reported, of being able to consider the referee's report and consider the evidence which the referee has never had a chance to see, and the order will ultimately be what I might call not revoked—but that will have been done on something which the referee has never had a chance to bring his independent mind to bear.
If that is not to happen I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment indicated. I am not very proud of the words, which we have had to draft very quickly to put into a Clause which itself was drafted quickly, but he ought to say that either he will accept those words or put the substance of them in on Report stage. I am entitled to make this general observation: that it is notorious to the whole world that policemen are not much worse than other people, but they have got their job to do and have to show results, and if you once let policemen know that they can

keep their witnesses back and never let anybody see them witnesses will become as fruitful as the vine.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I would like to support briefly the two Amendments to the proposed Amendment. The Solicitor-General said in answering the first of these Amendments that it was dangerous to inform the person against whom it is proposed to make an order of all the facts alleged against him. My first comment on that is that the difficulty might be dealt with in the way that was suggested by us a short time ago. If the Solicitor-General will look at paragraph 2 of the Schedule it will be clear that why we proposed that a notice should be served on the person concerned specifying, with sufficient particulars and reasonable information the nature of the facts alleged against him, the ground on which they were alleged and the order, if any, made against him. That would not bind the person who drew up the notice to include all the facts in possession of the Home Secretary who had thought it necessary to make the order, but it would enable the man to know the nature of the case which he had to meet.
Upon an earlier Amendment, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft) pointed out how many different types of case might arise. There is the simple case which occurs to all of us in which a man might make his defence by proving an alibi. He is alleged to have been at a certain house at a certain time when some bombing outrage was being planned. If he can prove that he was actually 100 miles away he has a perfectly simple defence. That is the kind of thing which is likely to arise. What will happen under this procedure? You have to disclose to him at some stage that this kind of thing is alleged against him. Then he says: "I can call a friend of mine to prove that I was at that place 100 miles away on the night in question." What will then happen? The referee who is holding the inquiry will, if justice is to be done, adjourn the inquiry until some future date, and the man will have to be kept in custody until the witness can be brought. Thus you have waste of time and the man unnecessarily kept in custody for a longer period than would have been the case, and, in addition,


you are adding slightly to the burden placed upon the referee. All that difficulty, trouble and delay would be avoided if you gave the man the sort of notice that was suggested in the first place.
The other argument is the one about giving away your sources of information. It is obvious that that situation must arise and I can appreciate the force of the argument. The Solicitor-General himself, and the Home Secretary in an earlier speech, made it clear that at some stage you have to give away the source of your information if the inquiry by the referee is to be worth anything at all. Consider again a kind of case that I have mentioned, in which he case against the accused is that he I as been in a certain place with a well-known incendiary on a certain night. Questions have to be put to him that will convey clearly to his mind that there are only one or two people who could have given information against him. You are bound to come up against that difficulty whatever form of procedure you adopt. Since you cannot obviate it entirely it would be much more satisfactory to give the man some sort of notice and indication of the case—I do not say of the facts— in good time before the hearing so that he might know the sort of case he has to meet and the sort of defence that might be accepted.
We have not yet had any indication of this kind, but is it contemplated that the referee shall hear any evidence other than that of the man himself? Suppose the man says, as he is bound to say, in certain connections: "I can prove that I am innocent of what you are alleging against me if I am able to call certain friends of mine who were with me at that time"; is it contemplated that it will be within the competence of the referee to call those witnesses and test them by cross-examination? If not, the position will be serious, because you will be depriving a man of what might be a very simple way of proving that he is innocent of the allegation advanced. I hope we can have an answer that other evidence will be called at the hearing before the referee, since at one stage or another you have to reveal something of your case. If the trial by the referee is to mean anything at all surely there is an overwhelming case for giving the

man notice in some form before the proceedings start

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Solicitor-General in dealing with the first Amendment to the proposed Amendment said that the referee—or call him what you will—will at once put before the accused the kind of case which is being made against him. If that is to be done, is there any objection to the kind of case which is to be made against him when he comes up being given to him say 48 hours before, so that he can have a look at it and see what is going to be said against him. The hon. Member who has just spoken has had a wide experience of police courts, and he knows how difficult it is to meet a case when you are put into court at the last moment without any instructions whatever. It is not unreasonable to ask that, say, 48 hours' notice should be given to the accused man, who is probably in custody, any how
On the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment my right hon. Friend is, I understand, refusing that point too. All that is suggested is that the evidence in his possession should be given, not to the accused, but to the right hon. Gentleman's own nominated investigator. I would like an answer to this question: Suppose that investigator were a judge of the High Court; would my right hon. Friend refuse to communicate to that judge of the High Court the information in his possession, and if so, why?

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to put to the Home Secretary one small point on this question of evidence. Many Members of the Committee quite appreciate the difficulties that are present to the mind of the Government over this matter, but the Government have said that at some stage or other the man must be given the substance—not the details and not the evidence—of the charge against him. My feeling is that if that is to be the case, there ought to be some provision for it in the Bill. There is nothing whatever in the Bill that even suggests that that procedure, which the Solicitor-General tells us will be followed, will in fact be followed. Hon. Members who are raising these points will be satisfied if words which the Government think meet the case—not necessarily the words


that have been proposed on this side of the Committee—are included, and provided there is in the Bill itself some mention of the fact that the substance of the charge against the man will at some point that is not too late be given to him who is the sufferer in the case. Otherwise, the whole procedure will be fruitless. If the man is not to know the substance of the case against him there is no point in having the referee. The man might say: "I am quite guiltless, "but that is all he can say. He must know something of the charge against him, and some reference to this procedure should be included in the Bill.

8.35 p. m

Sir R. Acland: I support the plea which has just been made, and should like to make it a little more specific. We thought that, although the Government were not being very generous towards our Amendment, they were showing Some appreciation of the point of view we tried to express on the Second Reading; but, now that they are rejecting these two Amendments, we are forced to revise our view about the Government's desire to meet us. That is the more unfortunate because we have recently been informed that the Government desire to get the whole of this Bill to-night. I hope that, if we are asked to co-operate with the Government in this way, they will cooperate with us as far as they can. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has suggested one alternative set of words which might be taken from paragraph 2 of our Schedule I would submit another set, which would be even easier for the Government to accept, as an Amendment to the first of the manuscript Amendments which we are now discussing. I would suggest that it might be made to read in this way:
Serving upon the objector, so far as he can without detriment to the public interest, a short statement of the facts upon which it is proposed to make"—
and so on. Is it conceivably possible that the Government could resist an Amendment in these terms? It seems to me that they would be completely safeguarded as to everything they do not want to do, and yet would be undertaking in the Bill to do everything which they say they will do. There is an important distinction between the Minister saying that something will be done and having it in the Bill in black and white, and I think the

Government ought to realise that that is so. At any rate, we feel strongly that it is so, and that they should try to meet us. As to the rejection of the second manuscript Amendment, that seems to me to be so amazing that I cannot understand it, and find myself quite incompetent to make any comment on it.

8.38 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I do not complain at all, because, by the nature of things, if an Amendment of the Government appears on the Order Paper on a particular day, one must expect manuscript Amendments; but it is very difficult in such a case to do anything except deal with the terms of the Amendment which are in manuscript before you. You cannot go on making Amendments to Amendments with any great convenience and without getting into hopeless confusion. Therefore, I have to deal with the first Amendment on what it says. It says that you must serve on the objector at the same time a short statement of the facts on which the Secretary of State relies. I have already said that my right hon. Friend cannot contemplate an Amendment in those terms, because it would involve his telling the objector what his material is. It may be extremely confidential; it may expose people to risk of life or bodily injury. If I may give an example that has occurred to me while I have been sitting on the bench as the Debate was going on, supposing that this were done, and that the referee reported, as he would be entitled to report, that the man had been for more than 20 years ordinarily resident here, the Home Secretary would revoke the order without prejudice to the facts. He might still remain perfectly satisfied that this man was an accomplice in the conspiracy, and yet, because it was reported to him, and he accepted the report, that the man had been here 20 years, the man would go free of the expulsion order. But he would have in his possession, if this Amendment were accepted, a statement of the confidential facts on which the Home Secretary had been brought to make up his mind in the first instance. Obviously, that is a situation which could not be contemplated, and therefore it is quite impossible to accept the first Amendment.
What does the man against whom an order has been made know? He knows


that an expulsion order has been made, and he knows that it has been made because the Home Secretary, responsible to this House, is satisfied that he has been concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence directed against this country. It is true that at the present moment there is no requirement in Clause I that that statement of the nature of the offence must be served upon him, but my right hon. Friend would be prepared to look into the question whether the nature of the offence should be disclosed to him with the original notice. There is, of course, the presumption that everyone knows the law, but, stretching a point in this case, that might be got over by including something in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 providing that notice should be given to the man, when the expulsion order is originally served, of the circumstances in which an expulsion order ought to be served.

Mr. Benn: Does the Solicitor-General mean that the man would be told that he is being served with an order because he is believed to be concerned according to the terms of the Act?

The Solicitor-General: That is all that I mean. He is supposed to know why the expulsion order is being served, but I can see no very great objection to that. As to the serving of a notice of the facts upon which the Home Secretary's mind would be made up, my right hon. Friend, for the reasons I have given, could not accept that suggestion. I pass to the second Amendment which we are also discussing, and which would provide that the referee, as we may call him, should be given all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State. Again I must deal with the Amendment as it stands. It is obvious that the referee will not in every case want all the evidence that is before the Secretary of State. Suppose, for example, that the only objection made by the objector is that he has been here for 20 years. If that is decided in his favour, and the Home Secretary accepts the report, it is conclusive and settles the matter, and in these circumstances there is no point in the person who is conducting the inquiry being given all the material which went to make up the Home Secretary's mind on the matter. But my right hon. Friend has given an

express assurance at this Box that it is his intention in every case to give to the referee all the material that is relevant to the making up of his mind on the issue that is before him. I suggest that that ought to be enough, and that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who is not at the moment in his place, was, quite unwittingly and un designedly, misrepresenting my right hon. Friend when he said he would not undertake to give the referee all the material.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will he give that undertaking?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend has given it in my hearing and in the hearing of all of us at this Box this afternoon. I think my hon. Friend must have overlooked it. It has been given explicitly here.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Solicitor-General cannot get away with that. How a particular Home Secretary, while he retains that office, administers the Bill is not relevant to our discussion. We are discussing whether this Bill, in its present form, should become an Act without any Amendment embodying the idea that we are discussing.

The Solicitor-General: That is a different objection. All I am saying at the moment is that it is not fair to say that no assurance has been given that the referees will, in fact, be put in possession of all the relevant materials. That assurance has, in fact, been given. The right hon. Gentleman says that an assurance is not enough; that he would like to see it embodied in an Act. I will tell him one-reason why my right hon. Friend does not desire to see it embodied in an Act. This is emergency legislation, dealing with a critical position, and the more you put into a Clause of this kind which enables the matter to be brought before the jurisdiction of the court, the less effective and prompt you make the legislation. It is possible to conceive types of proceedings by which questions of whether the tribunal was properly furnished are brought for decision before the High Court. The moment you permit that, you rip up the whole purpose of the legislation. In matters of legislation the House of Commons has to be governed by the pledge of the administrator as to the way that


the Act is to be administered. For these reasons neither of the Amendments would, in our opinion, effect the purpose of the Bill, which is to enable us to deal promptly with these things.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Benn: We are concerned here to see that innocent people do not get into the clutches of a secret process. If it were believed that that was going to happen, this Bill would do so much damage to the administration that it would outweigh anything which could be achieved

Sir Joseph Nail: What about the people who are being maimed and killed?

Mr. Benn: I do not think it would assist people who are being maimed and killed to arrest people who are innocent.

Sir J. Nail: It is much better to deport a dozen innocent persons than to allow one innocent person to be killed

Mr. Benn: The first Amendment we moved provides that the person charged should be told what he is charged with. We are as anxious as the hon. Member is to protect the public safety.

Sir J. Nail: What about Kings Cross?

Mr. Benn: We all feel exactly as he does about that, but we do not feel that justice can be done to the people who suffer by punishing the innocent. Of course, this is a very difficult problem; but I have often seen cases where public sentiment has been involved, and I have regretted afterwards that I have not had the courage to stand up for what I believed in because public sentiment was against me. There was a case after the outrages some time ago in Tottenham Court Road. A man named Fluke was brought up because the police believed that he was guilty of taking part in that outrage. Under this Measure, the police, believing him guilty, would have recommended him for deportation. Suppose that he did not know what was the charge. He would have been deported. But knowing what the charge was, this man was able to produce an alibi to show that when the outrage occurred he was not there; he was proved, in fact, to be a man who was not in sympathy with Eire at all. Why cannot the Government agree to an Amendment which asks for the most elementary right, that a man

who is charged should be given information as to the charge which is laid against him?

8.52 p. m

Mr. Harvey: The Government have shown themselves very much in earnest in their desire to, meet points which have been raised in different quarters with a view to safeguarding the rights of citizens, and I hope they will be able to go a little further than the learned Solicitor-General felt able to do. It ought to be possible to give some general indication of the charge without going into details. I can quite see that there is an objection to giving any detailed information, but it ought to be possible to give the accused a general indication before he is confronted in secret with the investigator or referee. If he knows the charge only at the very last moment, when he is confronted with the referee or investigator, he is at a very great disadvantage—and I do not think the Government wish to put an innocent person at a disadvantage. It should be possible for the Government to look into this with a view to themselves finding words, which they can themselves introduce if necessary, to make it possible that, at the very earliest opportunity and before the accused person is brought before the investigator, he will know the general nature of the charges brought against him. That can be done without revealing any facts which it would be dangerous to the public interest to disclose. I hope the Government will be able to see their way to meet the very weighty objection which has been raised on this point.

8.54 p.m.

Sir J. Nail: The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) quite clearly expressed himself most concerned about rights. As I understand the Bill and the Government's attitude to this Amendment to the proposed Amendment they are more concerned with the lives and safety of individuals. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), the safety of one person was much more important than the civil rights of a dozen, and I am sure the public at large would rather see a dozen persons wrongly deported than one killed.

Mr. Maxton: That is not always the hon. Member's attitude when the question of safety in mines is under discussion

Sir J. Nail: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I have never, in this House or elsewhere, endeavoured to impede safety in mines.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 190

Division No. 286]
AYES.
[8.57 p.m.]


Acland, Sir R.T.D.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams,D.(Censett)
Griffiths, J. (Llineliy)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D.M.(Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall. G. H. (Aberdare)
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batay, J.
Hayday, A.
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S S.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A, (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sloan, A.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stake)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cooks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Collindridge, F.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbia, W.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacDonald, G. (Inc)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, O. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales
Marnier, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison. R.C. (Tottenham, N.)



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nod-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver. G. H.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Grimston, R. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll. N. W.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hambro, A. V.


Aske, Sir R. W.
De la Bére, R.
Hannah, I. C.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Donman, Hon. R. D.
Harbord, Sir A.


Balfour, Cast. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dodd, J. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Doland, G. F.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Donner, P. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hepworth, J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Higgs, W. F.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S,


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Holdsworth, H.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Eastwood, J. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Edge, Sir W.
Hopkinson, A.


Butcher, H. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Hunloke, H. P.


Gary, R. A.
Errington, E.
Hunter, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Findlay, Sir E.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W H.


Christie, J. A.
Fleming, E. L.
Jennings, R.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Furness, S. N.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gfn)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gilmour, Ll.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gledhill, G.
Keeling, E. H.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)




Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Kimball, L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smith, Sir Ft. W. (Aberdeen)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir W.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Peake, O.
Snadden, W. McN.


Lees-Jones, J,
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somerset, T.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Somorvell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Levy, T.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spans, W. P.


Lewis, O.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Liddall, W. S.
Porritt, R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Little, J.
Power, Sir J. t.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Procter, Major H. A.
Sutoliffa, H.


Lloyd, G. W.
Radford, E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


M'Connell. Sir J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Titchfield, Marquess of


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Touche, G. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macdonald, Gap). P. (Isle of Wight)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


McEwen, Capt. J. H, F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Magnay, T.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ron, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Markham, S. F.
Rowlands, G.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Marsden, Commander A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mills, Major J. 0. (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wise, A. R.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C, R.
Salt, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wright, Wins-Commander J. A. C.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ't.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Young, A. S. L, (Partick)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Scott, Lard William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Munro, P.
Sellay, H. R.
Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Buchan


Nail. Sir J.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Hepburn.


Question put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: Mr. Pritt.

Mr. Pritt: I do not know whether it would be in order for me to speak now.

The Chairman: I suggest that if the hon. and learned Member really wants to make a statement, I can call the second Amendment to the proposed Amendment for the purpose of enabling him to do so

Mr. Pritt: I do not want to move my Amendment.

9.4 p. m

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Cannot the Solicitor-General give some indication between now and the Report stage that he will consider whether some words can be put into the Bill which will meet our difficulty? There is no guarantee in the Bill that the referee shall know the facts, or that, if he does know the facts, the man should be told. Cannot the Solicitor-General give a promise that between now and the Report stage some consideration can be given to the matter?

The Chairman: There is nothing before the Committee at the moment. I will put the original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

Mr. Benn: We have discussed the two Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment together, and as far as we are concerned, we have no desire to divide on the second.

Question again proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

9.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure Sir Dennis, whether you are putting the whole of the Government Amendment. There is an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) which we have not yet discussed. May I make a few observations about the second manuscript Amendment—in line 8, after "objection," to insert:
and examine all the evidence in the possession of the Secretary of State.
I should like to reply to what has been said by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I have given my reasons why we cannot accept these words as they stand, and he has asked whether we will look into the matter between now and another stage of the Bill and see whether we can surmount the objection that I outlined and meet the case which they have made. I certainly will give that undertaking. That shall be looked into, and if we can see a way round the difficulty, my right' hon. Friend does not see any objection in principle to having embodied in the Bill the assurance that he has given.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Benn: Our difficulty is this. We feel strongly about the points we have raised, but we are equally anxious that


the Government should receive all the powers they want as soon as possible. We do not want to stand in the way of that, and we are willing and anxious that the Committee stage should come to an end to-day, but that makes it very difficult with regard to drafting an Amendment. If the Amendments are made in another place by the Government and they come back to us here as Amendments, we should have freedom to discuss them as such almost with the same latitude as if they had been moved in this House. There are, of course, certain limits. I think that is the best thing that we can do, because there is no opportunity for the drafting of an. Amendment now unless the right hon. Gentleman has his Amendment ready. Therefore, the best arrangement would be that the undertaking given by the Government will be implemented by Amendments which will be moved in another place and that those Amendments should come to us and we shall be given a reasonable chance of examining them in the light of the promises made to us. Would that be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman?

9.8 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I certainly agree. With regard to the points that we said we would consider, perhaps I might be able to confer with the right hon. Gentleman. So far as we have given undertakings, whatever form they take, we shall carry them out. I think the best plan would be, if it suits the right hon. Gentleman, that to-morrow he should have a talk with me, and then we should adopt the procedure suggested, namely, that the changes, if changes are to be made, will be made in another place.

Mr. Pritt: As the right hon. Gentleman's main Amendment is now before us, may I, in order to get something on record, ask him to consider this point? Now that this right has been conferred by the proviso, may we take it that if, out of the blue, a man gets a notice of expulsion, he shall be given a statement informing him that he has the rights that are mentioned in the Secretary of State's new words. That is to say, that if he objects that there are no grounds or that there are unsufficient grounds for the charge, he may make application.

9.10 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. That relieves us from the difficult' of discussing the Amendment which the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has handed in to that effect. It is our intention to incorporate the effect of that Amendment in Clause 1 (5), and at the same time to implement the promise I made that we will also incorporate something in Sub-section (5) which will enable an indication to be given to the person who is served with an order that he is in fact believed to be concerned with preparation, instigation or harbouring, as the case may be, which are the provisions of Sub-section (2).

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 2, leave out "has been made," and insert "is in force."

In line 5, after "but," insert "subject as hereinafter provided."

In line 7, at the end, add:
Provided that no person shall without his consent be so placed on board ship as aforesaid until after the expiration of forty-eight hours from the service upon him of notice of the order made against him or if he makes representations to the Secretary of State in accordance with the last foregoing Sub-section until after the decision of the Secretary of State with respect thereto has been notified to him."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Benn; I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, at the end, to add: (3)This Section shall have effect only in cases where some other country in which such person can reasonably reside without endangering his liberty is willing to receive him.
I should like to ask what the Government intend to do with the man who has nowhere to go. I understand that four men who have been convicted came from Northern Ireland. Suppose you propose to deport some men to Northern Ireland and the Government of Northern Ireland say that they do not want them. Suppose their home town will not have them? What is to be done with them? Are they to be subjected to imprisonment or internment? That is the difficulty that I visualise in this Amendment. I do not know whether Eire will take back the people whom the Home Secretary may wish to send there. I am trying to


foresee some of the difficulties that may arise. Suppose the difficulty does arise and Eire will not take them and the North of Ireland will not take them. It looks as if we shall be obliged to have some form of internment. Once we have an internment camp for people of this kind, people of passionate fanaticism, then all kinds of trouble will arise. I should be sorry for the Home Secretary if he had to intern people who had not been subjected to trial, not subjected to any charge, or convicted, but who were kept prisoners in a country they hated. That would have the worst possible effect on the future. Therefore, I move this Amendment to get some information from the Government as to what they intend to do with such persons.

Sir S. Hoare: I certainly do not like the idea of internment and I hope very much that we shall be able to avoid having recourse to any such expedient.

Mr. Benn: I hope the Home Secretary is not under the impression that I am advocating internment.

Sir S. Hoare: Not at all. I have as much dislike to internment as the right hon. Member. The Bill is based upon the assumption that the countries of origin will take back their citizens, and I believe we shall find that they will do so. Whatever course we may have to take I prefer to base the Bill on that assumption, but if they do not do so, and on a large scale, we shall have to have a new Bill. If there is an individual case in which for some reason, perhaps because the man or woman is not accepted as a citizen and is voluntarily sent back here, having been deported, then we shall have to take into account the fact that a return is impossible.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I think the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in accepting the Amendment, because if the difficulty should arise that any of these countries refuse to accept these people, then he has an alternative which will enable him to deal with the matter. It is certainly an Amendment which would give him power to deal with a particular case. As I understand, Eire is not only making its own regulations, but that in the case of persons convicted there would not be any entry into Eire. Therefore,

these people who have been put on board ship would be on the high sea. What is going to happen to them? The I.R.A. Rave been proscribed in Southern Ireland, and if we suspect these people, they are to be put on the first ship out. Where are they to go? If they are inhabitants of Eire and Eire refuses to accept them, where are they to go? If the Amendment is not accepted I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in some difficulty in dealing with these cases.

Mr. Benn: As I understand, the Home Secretary says that if these cases of refusal arise he will introduce a new Bill. In those circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Sir S. Hoare: What I said was that the basis of the Bill is that the countries of origin will take back these people; if not we shall have to take other measures which might almost inevitably mean a new Bill. I think that the wise course is not to put anything into the Bill which would give the impression that the countries of origin will not take back their citizens.

Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3. —(Offences and penalties.)

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after "fails," to insert "without reasonable cause."
We all recognise that it is necessary there should be severe penalties for a breach of the order which is made, but I am sure the Government would not wish the penalty to fall upon someone who through no fault of his own was prevented from fulfilling the obligation within the time limit. There are several obvious cases in which this might happen, and where I am sure it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that any penalty should be imposed. A man might fall ill, be stricken down with grave influenza or some infectious illness, when it would be quite impossible for him to fulfil the terms of the Order. He may at the last moment be delayed by reason of the death of his wife or child, and in that case I do not think the delay of a week ought


to be a ground for penalty. It may be a case of accident, a broken ankle, or a broken collar bone, which would make it difficult for him to get away. I am sure that the Home Secretary wishes to be merciful in cases of that kind, and I am certain that the insertion of these words would not interfere with the object of the Clause.

9.24 p.m.

The Attorney-General: While appreciating the sort of case which the hon. Member has in mind, I think it is better not to insert these words. First of all, there is the fact that the consent of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General has to be obtained before further proceedings can be taken, and cases of sickness or accident would, of course, receive consideration. I think it is much better to leave the offence absolute, and, in the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, to rely on the ordinary safeguards which apply in many other cases. There are many other cases in which there may be a breach of the law but where it is quite plain that there is no culpability, and I think that we should take the same course in this matter.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: Would the Attorney-General deal with the case of a man who is quite willing but quite unable to find the means with which to go. A great number of these young men, particularly in the circumstances arising now as the result of these I.R.A. outrages, will probably be out of work. It may be that they have not the fare to get to Eire, America or anywhere else they may desire to go. What will you do in cases like that? If a case like that arises have you got that power or will you exercise some other power you may have to see that they get an opportunity of going by having a ticket presented to them?

The Attorney-General: Provision will be made in exactly the same way as under the Aliens Act.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The Attorney-General advances two reasons for not accepting this proposal. One of them is absolutely baseless. He says that you cannot institute the proceedings without the consent of the Law Officers. The Bill says that you cannot institute the proceedings without the consent of the Law Officers

except such as the court may think necessary by remand or otherwise to secure the safe custody of the person charged, but this Sub-section shall not apply to Scotland or to any prosecutions instituted by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions institutes practically every prosecution of the slightest importance in the country. The fiat of the Attorney-General, therefore, simply does not exist. I do not suppose there will ever be a prosecution under this Section which is not instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the general instructions of the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General is responsible.

Mr. Pritt: That is even sillier. Most of us know that in many cases he consults the Attorney-General, but there is a well recognised form of protecting people from wrong prosecutions, and that is that it shall not be done without the fiat of the Attorney-General. He then has to make up his mind whether he will grant it. This is not that case. The Attorney-General so often gives us so bad a reason for something which may be good in itself that we do not know where we are.

Amendment negatived.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out from "to," to "or," in line 18, and to insert "imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
This Amendment deals with the term of imprisonment which the court may inflict under this Clause. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment, and, therefore, I beg to move it formally.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "three," and to insert "four."
The purpose of this Amendment is that the liability for imprisonment should be raised from three to four months. It is done to create a right of appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out "three," and to insert "four"
This is exactly the same thing. It is not a right of appeal but the right to claim trial by jury.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4. —(Detention and identification of suspects, and searches.)

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "he," to insert "reasonably."
This deals with the right of search and similar matters. Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of having committed an offence under this Act or any person whom he suspects to be a person against whom an expulsion order or a prohibition order has been made. I want to have the word "reasonably" inserted.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 39, after "he," insert "reasonably."

In line 42, after the first "person," insert "so." —[Mr. Pritt.]

The Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Mr. Benn: Do I understand that you are not calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and myself in page 4, line 1, setting a time limit on the period during which a suspect may be kept under arrest without warrant?

The Chairman: That is so. I am not selecting it.

Mr. Benn: Do I understand that you do not select any of the Amendments dealing with this point?

The Chairman: No, that is not right. The Amendment in page 4, line 2, which I am calling, is the second of two Amendments of a similar effect.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 2, at the end, insert:
Provided that no such person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours except with the authority of the Secretary of State expressly given in each case."—[Mr. Pritt.]

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "or in any other place."
The purpose of this Amendment is a simple one. I am not urging the Secretary of State to tie himself to this particular Amendment, but I do think that to give the Minister power to detain a person affected by this Measure anywhere—the words are "may be detained in any prison or in any other place" —gives much too general a description. I am not attempting to bar the use of a police station or any authorised place of detention. I understand that in some of the courts there are recognised places where aliens under sentence of deportation can be detained. I do not for a moment object to the use of such places for this type of case, but to give to the police the power to keep prisoners in any unauthorised or secret place seems to me to be a very great departure which I am sure goes outside the intention of the Home Secretary. I would rather that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert in the Clause some words that would make that quite impossible.

9.36 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I can give the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) an assurance that will, I think, satisfy him. The words "or in any other place "mean a police station, I am informed, and nothing else. They mean also that if it was necessary to keep a person in custody for two or three days while representations were being heard, arrangements for his removal to a prison would be made, so that he could be kept only in a police station or in prison. I agree with everything which the hon. Member said about the grave objections to having any place of confinement other than police stations and prisons. I will look into the wording and see whether, in another place, it can be made more clear that that is so.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It seems to me to be a great pity that, if a police station is meant, that is not said. After all, when in this Committee we allude to another place, we certainly do not mean a police station.

Sir S. Hoare: I have said that I will look into the wording.

Mr. Ede: There is another point that I want to raise. Is any notification to be sent to the relatives, if known, of the person who is arrested, of the fact that he has been arrested and the place of his incarceration, whether temporary or permanent? As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted more than once, we are dealing with an exceptional Measure. There are, of course, instances at the present time where the police of other States visit a person, take him away, and his relatives and friends have no knowledge of where he is, and do not know anything about him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make a provision which may place citizens of this country in that very difficult position merely on the suspicion of a police constable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that, as soon as possible after arrest, the relatives, if known, will be notified of the man's arrest and informed of the place of incarceration.

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I will look into that point, and I do not think I shall find myself in disagreement with what the hon. Member has said. I do not think the question arises specifically on this Amendment, but I undertake to look into it.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "justice of the peace," and to insert "Judge of the High Court."
The object of this Amendment is to make a search warrant dependent on the decision of a judge of the High Court and not a justice of the peace. In drafting a number of these Amendments, I have simply gone through the Incitement to Disaffection Act and found out where this Bill is, from the point of view of search warrants, more rigorous or looser, whichever way one puts it, than the Incitement to Disaffection Act; and nearly all these Amendments have derived from that examination. I know that it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to hasten, and judges of the High Court are, by the very nature of their important office, available in London and elsewhere. It may be that the difficulty

of location is troubling the right hon. Gentleman, but the trouble is that there are so many different kinds of justices of the peace.

9.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General: An exception was made in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Act. In a very large number of Acts, the search warrant is issued by justices of the peace. I do not want to revive old controversies about the Incitement to Disaffection Act, but certain misapprehensions, which happily proved to be unfounded, were then expressed which led to that exception to the general rule being made. I advise the Committee to stick to the ordinary constitutional precedent of having search warrants issued by justices of the peace, particularly having regard to the very great urgency which there may be in some cases. It is the search warrant that has enabled most of the 64 cases where convictions have been obtained to be brought before the court. This is the normal procedure for search warrants, and I recommend the Committee to stick to it.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I know something about the introduction of the provision regarding a judge of the High Court in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, because it was I who drafted the Amendment that was carried. I would like now to suggest that the Government should compromise on this matter, and that instead of the reference being to one justice of the peace, it should be to two justices of the peace. That would make the position correspond to what would be the case in Scotland, where it is the sheriff. [Interruption.] In Scotland, the sheriff corresponds to practically a bench of magistrates here. I think the Government ought to consider this suggestion. The fact that the assent of two justices of the peace rather than one justice of the peace had to be obtained would give a certain weight to the action, and there would not be the same tendency to act irresponsibly.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 18, leave out "procuration," and insert "instigation."�ž[Sir S. Hoare.]

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, after "is," to insert, "knowingly."

Mr. Benn: I should like to raise a point on this Amendment. I am concerned with the position of a man who finds himself landed with an order, is not told why the order is made against him, and knows himself to be perfectly innocent. I want to know what his position will be. Supposing that a man comes to my house or to the house of my agent and says, "I am an Irishman, I have received an order to leave, but I am innocent." I may say or my agent may say, "I will make representations to the Home Office and in the meantime you may stay the night here." Is that to be considered as harbouring a man against whom it is known that an order has been served, and can a search warrant be issued in that case? As I have said already, I do not want to stand in the way of this Bill. If it can get at the people who are committing these crimes, then let that be done, but do not let us, because we are afraid to examine the Bill in detail, pass all sorts of powers which may lead to great injustice.

9.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The words, if this Amendment is accepted, will be "who, knowingly, is harbouring any other person so concerned." The justice of the peace would, of course, make up his mind on the information before him, but he has to be satisfied that it is a case of knowingly harbouring a person concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence.

Mr. Benn: That means to say that the justice would have the power in a case such as I have mentioned, to issue a search warrant. If a person on whom an order had been served went to a friend and asked for his assistance to get in touch with the local Member of Parliament and have his case put to the Home Office, and if the friend asked that man to stay at his house, he would be knowingly harbouring a person on whom an order had been served and his house could be searched.

The Attorney-General: The person has to be a person "concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence" and not a person on whom an order has been served. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case not of a person concerned in the

preparation of acts of violence, but a person against whom an order has been wrongly made. I think that, on the whole, these words are favourable to the case which he has put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after "may," to insert:
on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector.

Sir S. Hoare: I accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "any," to insert "such."

This Amendment is consequential.

The Attorney-General: I do not think this is consequential. This would mean that an officer of a rank not lower than that of inspector would have to be present whenever a search warrant was executed. That we do not regard as administratively practicable.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I am afraid I misled my hon. and learned Friend by telling him that this was consequential. I recognise that it is no good having a search warrant unless you can serve it quickly, but in connection with these searches abuses may and sometimes do arise, and it is not a very strong requirement to say that it must be done by an officer of a certain rank.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, after "time," insert "within one month from the date of the warrant."�ž[Mr. Pritt]

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents or other objects have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents or other objects.
These words I have taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act in this


country. Even in Germany, when it was a civilised country, they had very strict rules of this kind and they were carried out even in periods of the greatest stress. Young men who are provided, I suppose, with more explosives than money, and who come from another country to cause trouble here, are generally to be found, one presumes, in lodging houses and similar places where many different kinds of people, having no particularly close ties with each other, are also to be found. These people will have all sorts of miscellaneous bits of property. When the police have gone some things may be missing and I can well imagine Mr. A alleging that Mr. B's missing property must have been taken by the police and this leading to a breach of the peace and further legal proceedings. If it is necessary to carry out a search in a hurry, let it be carried out in a hurry, but at any rate tell these people many of whom are not even charged with or suspected of any offence, what you have stolen from them.

9.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General: If in the execution of a search warrant, the police did steal something, they would be liable to the ordinary process of the criminal law just the same as anybody else. All that the search warrant entitles an officer to do is to take articles which he has reasonable ground of suspecting to be evidence in relation to these matters. If he takes any article which he has no reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of these matters, he is just as much liable as anybody else who takes an article which he is not entitled to take. The hon. and learned Member said these words were taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act. Again, I do not want to raised old controversies, but it was suggested that the search warrant under that Act might be used to search peoples' libraries. I do not think that arises at all in connection with this Bill.
There is an additional reason why this Amendment would be undesirable. The police might find documents the nature of which it would be extremely desirable to keep secret. If this Amendment were passed they would be compelled to give to the occupier who might not himself be involved, particulars of all the documents which had been found.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I should have thought the Minister would have been more reasonable in this matter. We all know that the Irish are extremely clannish and that young Irishmen like to lead a communal life. The result is that quite a crowd of them will board together. Imagine what may happen. The police make a raid and ransack the belongings of the inmates of a house, taking away papers and other things, and no list of the articles is left behind. A man gets a summons, and he may or may not accept the statement that the police have ransacked his belongings and taken his goods away. You can imagine what might happen in a boarding house. Surely it is not too much to expect that when the police ransack the belonging of the individuals in that house, they should give a list stating that they have been there and taken from the house certain articles, so that nobody else would be suspected of doing what the police have done. Surely that is a reasonable request.

Amendment negatived.

9.57 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, m page 4, line 34, to leave out "it appears to."
This Amendment goes with the next Amendment to line 35, and is one which, in my submission —

The Attorney-General: We are prepared to accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, after "superintendent," insert "has reasonable grounds for believing." —[Sir R. Acland.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. —(Short title, and duration.)

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "two years," and to insert "one year."
It is one of the excuses, if I may so call them, for this Bill that it is purely temporary, and everybody hopes that the trouble will be long over past within two years or even one year. As it is so very exceptional a matter, I submit that it would be very much better that we should show that we are not unduly perturbed by these matters, and that this Measure


is very temporary, by making its duration one year only. If at the end of the year there is still trouble, the Government will then have to put it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It would be a simple matter, if they found it necessary, to put the Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If the Amendment were accepted, at least it would mean that at the end of 12 months we should certainly have an opportunity of reviewing in this House the whole operation of the Bill. I know that an Amendment has been accepted under which a report is to be made to this House every three months as to the number of persons who have been dealt with under the Measure. That does not take us very far, because, of course, the number of occasions which we shall have for discussing these reports will be limited, and the reports may not tell us a great deal, but if this were carried, it would mean that at the end of 12 months we could have a full discussion on the way in which these exceptional powers have worked. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill regrets having to ask for powers of this kind, and he would not have done so but for these exceptional circumstances. I think it would help to reconcile many of us to the fact that these powers have to be given if they could be passed only for the shortest possible time.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I would like to associate myself with this Amendment and to appeal strongly to the Home Secretary. I think it would be the general view of the Committee that if this Bill has not produced its results at the end of 12 months, it is not a case of asking for its continuance for another 12 months. Obviously, it is then up to the Home Secretary and to this House to devise some other way of dealing with the problem. Therefore, a 12-months duration for this particular Measure seems to me to be completely adequate and, indeed, more than enough. Members will look forward with very great hope, although many doubts have been expressed to the Home Secretary, that these additional powers will have put a stop to this sort of thing in much less than 12 months,

but if they have not done so then, it is no good continuing the powers, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to get something else.

10.3 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I think the Committee ought to remember, first of all, that the powers in this Bill will be exercised only if they are needed. If it is found that the terrorists' attempts are coming to an end, and that we have succeeded in a short time in getting rid of the most dangerous conspirators, quite obviously the powers will tend to diminish and fade out altogether. It will come to this, that the powers in the Bill will be exercised only if they are needed. Secondly, the Committee ought to remember, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has just reminded us, that I have undertaken to make a periodical report to the House on the cases of deportation. Taking these two facts into account, I think the Committee have every necessary safeguard against the powers in this Bill being exercised in an abusive way, or being exercised for a longer period than they are needed. I further think that I should be misleading the Committee tonight if I told them that we could safely reduce the duration of this Measure to 12 months. I hope we shall get level with the danger during 12 months. I do not wish to be either sanguine or pessimistic, but looking at the gravity of the problem with which we are faced, I think two years is the minimum that the Committee ought to put in the Bill today, taking the assurance from me that these powers will not be exercised a day longer than they are actually required.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I wonder whether the Attorney-General could clear up a point that was raised earlier by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) as to the duration of orders. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the view that, although the Act might come to an end in two years, nevertheless orders made under it would continue. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has had time further to consider the matter. If so, perhaps he would enlighten us.

The Attorney-General: I think it is clear that an order ceases to be of effect when the Act comes to an end. There cannot be an order under an Act which has come to an end.

Mr. Foot: Clause 2 says:
Any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served shall leave Great Britain in accordance with the requirements specified in the notice.
It might conceivably happen that one of the requirements specified in the notice would be a time limit. If the Attorney-General says that is not the intention, I accept it, but a time limit might be included there and the time might ran beyond the duration of the Act.

The Attorney-General: As I read the Bill, an order cannot be an order for a specific period. It is an order which, on the face of it, would not name a period. It remains in force until revoked by an order made in like manner under Clause I (6). Therefore, when the Act comes to an end, the order ceases to be in force. …Clause 2 (i) says:
and shall thereafter while the order is in force remain outside Great Britain.

Mr. Gallacher: Then are we to understand that the position is that a person who is ordered to leave the country and does not go can be sentenced to five years' imprisonment but, if he does go, he is only put out of the country for two years and at the end of two years he can come back again?

The Attorney-General: I have stated the position as clearly as I can. I do not think there is any point in stating it again.

Mr. Gallacher: I think it ought to be clearly stated that people who are deported are deported for two years, and that at the end of two years they will be permitted to come back.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to repeal Act.)

If a resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament for the repeal of this Act, it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council by Order to repeal this Act to such extent as may be specified in the Resolution.—[Mr. Benn].

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause permits a Motion to be made in either House for the repeal of the Act. In taking the very great powers that he is taking, the Home Secretary has always told us that it is here that his actions may be controlled, and that he is going to make a report, how full we do not know, of cases in which he deports people by his signature under the Act. I am very anxious that the House should have an opportunity, if it so desires, to call the right hon. Gentleman to account and to ask him what he has done under the powers conferred upon him. We may want to know what success he has had, or it may be that we shall want to criticise cases in which we think he has inflicted injustice. The Clause means that any day any Member of Parliament may put down on the Paper a notice of Motion for the repeal of the Act. Unless, of course, he has the support of a majority of the House the Act will not be repealed, but the Motion has this merit that, being made in pursuance of the Statute, under the Standing Order it is exempted business, and therefore he is certain to get an opportunity of presenting to the House the issue of the administration of the Act. I think the Amendment will commend itself to Members in all parts of the House, and I do not imagine that the Government will resist it.

Sir S. Hoare: I am very reluctant to oppose a proposal of this kind, but I do not very much like it. I will not go as far as to say that it is harmful or dangerous, but it is almost a new precedent. I do not much like introducing these new forms of procedure into our Parliamentary practice. As far as I am concerned, I do not mind the conduct of the Secretary of State in the administration of this Measure being called into account at any time, but I should like the views of one or two other hon. Members before adopting a practice that is practically new in our Parliamentary annals.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I think this is one of the most inhuman proposals one could conceive. There is already plenty of exempted business in this House. One of the curses of Parliamentary life is that one never gets enough sleep, and that there should be more exempted business is a terrible prospect. Seriously, exempted business is one of the banes of Parliamentary life, and I hope the House will reject the proposal.

10.15 p. m

Mr. Bellenger: The Home Secretary has asked us for expressions of opinion. He did not ask. I think, for such an expression of flippant opinion as has just been given by the hon. Member.

Mr. Nicholson: It was serious.

Mr. Bellenger: My right hon. Friend who put forward this proposal did it in all seriousness, and he did it, I should imagine, in response to suggestions made by the Home Secretary himself that he was quite prepared to accept any proposal to make this Measure as workable and as amenable to all opinions in the House as possible. He has told us that he takes full responsibility for this Bill. Many of us do not like some of the provisions embodied in it, although we realise the purpose of it, and therefore when my right hon. Friend, in explaining this new Clause, says it is drawn up expressly for the purpose of calling upon the Home Secretary to give an account of his stewardship, surely that is sufficient to commend it to the Committee. Unless there are much more substantial objections than that of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) I think there is no argument against it.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I think that one thing we ought to guard against is redundant legislation, and if the Home Secretary gives a promise that he will make a report every three months it will be quite possible for hon. Members to put down a Motion condemning the Home Secretary for any shortcomings which they felt there had been in the working of the Measure.

10.17 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: The Government, who have been extraordinarily reasonable to us in the last hour or so, have frequently asked us to accept the fact that they are going to administer this Measure as reasonable men, and on the whole I think that they cannot complain that we have refused to accept their assurances. Then, I would ask, cannot they accept our assurances that we, desiring sleep as much as any hon. Member opposite, will also avail ourselves of the opportunities given under this proposed new Clause as reasonable beings, and if nothing is happening except that the Home Secretary is administering this Measure against criminals with all

due diligence, make no use of this power? Cannot they accept our assurance that use will only be made of it when there may be very real grounds for doing it when a great number of people are questioning whether the law is being properly administered or not? In such circumstances I should have thought the Government would have welcomed as much as we would welcome an opportunity of having what would be only a brief discussion, perhaps between half-post Eleven and Twelve o'clock at night. I submit to the Home Secretary that he could do himself no harm and a great deal of good by accepting this new Clause and by trusting us as he has asked us to trust him.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir Percy Harris: On a point of Order. I must protest about that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I quite appreciate that the matter is urgent and I am not objecting to the Report stage being taken, on the understanding that we can put in our Amendments. We have them already drafted ready to hand in. They are not obstructive Amendments but are of a constructive kind, and before the Third Reading is taken I suggest that these Amendments be considered on the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Baronet is putting the Chair in a somewhat difficult position because the Amendments could not be considered and selected at such short notice.

Sir R. Acland: We appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you are in a very difficult position. We realise that we have put in two manuscript Amendments and that we are thus putting the Chair in a difficulty, but the House itself is put in a difficulty by the speed of the procedure. In order to do my best to obviate the difficulties of the Chair I took the precaution of putting in these two Amendments and of taking a copy of them informally to your office so that there


would be an opportunity for you to consider whether they were Amendments that should be selected or not.

10.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Further to the point of Order. I have had an opportunity, which I gather that you, Mr. Speaker, have not had, of seeing the two Amendments that are proposed. They deal with points which were fully discussed on the Committee stage, and it seems to me that one of the objections to them was the same as to the Amendments which were put down on the Committee stage. The Amendments really seek a new discussion of matters which were discussed on the Committee stage.

Sir R. Acland: As I submitted in my informal note to you, Sir, the Amendments obviate and get rid of the two principal objections which the Government raised to two Amendments to which all Members on this side of the House attach very great importance. Therefore the Amendment which I would move could not be a re-discussion of matters already discussed. They are drafted so as to make it impossible for the Government to raise again those matters of principle and of objection which they raised on the Committee stage.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: Surely this is a matter of general and considerable importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think there is any question of obstruction on either side. We have had a very long discussion which has gone through very well, but the Report stage is a vital stage. The Bill has been extensively amended. The actual number of Amendments has been very large. There are outstanding matters which the Government have undertaken to consider, and probably they will have to deal with them in another place rather than here. The proposal now is that the Report stage should be purely nominal and that no one who wants to put down an Amendment on the Report stage can do so. He is merely to be told that he cannot do so. I suggest that that is hardly the right way to preserve the liberties of Members of this House. Even if it is only for the purpose of marking that those rights do exist, and without spending much time upon it to-night, could you not, Mr.

Speaker, suspend the sitting for a quarter of an hour, so that any necessary examination of the hon. Baronet's Amendment could be made and we could then have a real Report stage?

Sir P. Harris: Last week I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I attach a very great importance to having a separate day for the Report stage so that Amendments could be put down. The Prime Minister in his statement to-day said that if necessary he would postpone the Report stage till to-morrow and take it after Eleven O'Clock. We accepted that proposal in principle. We realise, however, the great urgency of the Bill, and for that reason we acquiesce in the Report stage being taken now, but we suggest that in the circumstances we should have a chance to discuss these Amendments on Report, which would not cause unnecessary delay.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): As the hon. Baronet will realise, it is not for me to say what is or is not in order on the Report stage. At Question Time to-day the Prime Minister made a statement as to the urgency of the Bill, but said that, if the proceedings were very protracted, it would not be reasonable to ask the House to take the remaining stages of the Bill at a very late hour. I do not think, however, that it can be said that we have reached such a very late hour that we are not in a position to complete our consideration of the Bill to-night. It is a very urgent and important Bill.

Sir P. Harris: The reason for its having gone through so quickly is that we have all been so helpful, and, therefore, I would suggest, if it is in order and if you, Mr. Speaker, have no objection, we might be allowed to discuss these Amendments, which would not take very long.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet was kind enough to send me a copy of the Amendments which it was proposed to put down on Report, and I understand that they were very fully discussed during the Committee stage. We are working in rather urgent circumstances in passing this Bill, and, that being the case, I have no doubt that the House will assist me. I think that as a matter of fact my predecessor in the Chair had already put the Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," and I do not see how


we can go back on it. I do not know whether the Home Secretary would be prepared to give an undertaking that the points in question will be considered in another place.

Sir S. Hoare: Certainly, I will give that undertaking at once. Indeed, I gave a similar undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman opposite earlier in the discussion. Perhaps I might be allowed to say, further, that, so far as I was concerned, I was ready to deal with any Amendments that might be called, but that was a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Maxton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make the same offer to the hon. Members responsible for these Amendments as he made to the right hon. Gentleman, that is to say, to discuss the matter with them in preparing the Amendments for another place?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that is a point of Order or not, but, if I may be allowed to say so, the difference between the two cases seems to me to be that in the case of these two Amendments we had already discussed and had voted against Amendments to a similar effect, whereas in the case raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite there had been no decision, but the Amendments had been withdrawn on the understanding that they would be considered.

10.29 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: We voted against other Amendments and defeated them because the Government gave reasons why the Amendments which we were then discussing were unacceptable to them. These Amendments which I am asking leave to discuss are specially drawn so as to meet and concede the very points which the Government are raising, and I submit that they could be disposed of in a quarter of an hour's, or perhaps half an hour's discussion. In answer to the point on which I think you based your final Ruling against us. may I say that it was my ignorance of the Procedure of the House that placed me at a disadvantage? At the moment when the Deputy-Chairman was calling the Report stage, I was doing what I understood to be the right thing, namely, handing in the Amendments at the Table, instead of moving them in manuscript form.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On that point of Order. Your predecessor, Sir, distinctly called the Third Reading, not the Report stage. Therefore, I cannot see that this discussion can have any effect.

Mr. Harvey: Would you have allowed this discussion, Sir, had it not been possible to consider these Amendments? Surely the fact that you have allowed the discussion shows that it is possible.

Mr. Benn: We certainly agree that the Report stage and Third Reading should be taken to-night, but I should be very sorry if advantage were taken of that to establish a precedent for having a Report stage which is no Report stage, and for the hon. Baronet not to be allowed to move his Amendments because of some arrangement which has been made. I heard you say, Sir, that you regard this as an exceptional case, because of some emergency. If no precedent has been created, I would accept the position that there is no infringement of the rights of the House.

Mr. Foot: The second of the Amendments which we proposed to move dealt with a matter which has not been fully discussed: the question of the 20 years. We wanted to draw a distinction between issues which the Home Secretary will have to decide generally under the Bill and the issue of 20 years' residence, which we believe is a matter capable of exact proof. Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider that, and to consider allowing that question—and that question alone—to be decided by a judge?

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on with the Third Reading. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Benn: We have lived through a tragic day. There is something to be said for this House when it is able to consider reasonably the question of the rights of the individual at a time when we are preparing to give the Government these powers. We do not propose to Divide on the Third Reading; we do not wish to prevent the Government having this Bill, but let them not forget that these powers have been given to them at the risk, as we believe, of the infringement of liberties which are very dear to us all

Sir S. Hoare: I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the proceedings this afternoon. I think the House of Commons has shown up very well. If we compare our proceedings with the kind of action which would have taken place in some parts of the world, when we consider what has taken place this afternoon, we can still say that the Mother of Parliaments is indeed one of the greatest institutions of the world. Credit for that is due not so much to the Government as to the whole House, and I take the opportunity to thank both the Oppositions for the way these proceedings have been conducted. They have had their doubts about the action that the Government are taking, they have expressed them. I have tried to meet them as best I can, but I am afraid that some of those doubts still exist. I will do my best, so long as I am responsible for the administration of this Act, to show that their doubts are unjustified and to see that innocent people are not unjustly treated under the provisions of this Measure. So far as specific points raised by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are concerned, I did nothing to prevent them having whatever discussions they wished. It is a matter of Order for the Chair, but I will look into the points which they have raised, and will treat them exactly as I promised to treat other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I will see if there is any way in which their views can be met. I am not giving any pledge that I can do it, but I will look into it again, and, if possible, will see that steps are taken in another place. With these few words let me once again thank the House for having so carefully expedited the proceedings on this Bill and congratulate Members on all sides upon the way in which they have dealt with it.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Foot: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance that he has just given to us. He will appreciate that we in this part of the House are bound to regard with the very greatest suspicion any Bill of this kind proposing to confer emergency powers and setting aside the ordinary safeguards for the rights and liberties of the citizen. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use these powers, as he

has said, with the greatest care, that he will take every possible step to see that innocent men are not exiled, or prevented from entering this country under the Act, and also that he will discontinue the use of these powers as soon as circumstances allow. Having said that, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way and the spirit in which he has met some of the Amendments which have been put forward this afternoon.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS BILL.

As amended(in the Select Committee and on re-committal) considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Mander: We do not know what has been happening, as it has been quite impossible to hear during the last few minutes what stage we have reached. There are a few words that I desire to say on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill, if that is the position which we have now reached.

Mr. Speaker: I have put the Question, but the hon. Member can raise his point.

Mr. Mander: At the end of the Debate last night on the Third Schedule dealing with compensation to employés who may be discharged, the Secretary of State for Air was good enough to say that he would give careful consideration to certain representations which I had made arising out of the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. I can quite appreciate that it may well be that he has not yet had time to do that in the very short period which has elapsed since yesterday. But if he has, I shall be glad if he can give the House the result of his consideration, and, if not, perhaps he will indicate that it will be done in another place, or that when the Bill comes back from another place he will do so. I should be quite satisfied, and I think that all reasonable views could be met, if he were able to make a statement that in the event of any of these persons being,


contrary to expectations, discharged, he will use all his influence and power with the directors of the new corporation to see that sympathetic treatment is given to these people, and that they will be given, in fact, more in the way of compensation than that to which they might be strictly entitled on a legal basis. Unless he is able to do that, he is not making any concession. I hoped that he would be able to say something upon the matter now.

10.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I do not think I can add anything to what I said to my hon. Friend last night, but if between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will consult me and supply me with any further information, I will have it considered and see what can be done. I think he will agree that I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Select Committee and the desires of the House on this Bill. I think the hon. Member is the only one with whom I had any difference in regard to this particular problem.

Mr. Mander: No. It was raised by another hon. Member.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will consult with me between now and the next stage. He knows that I shall be only too glad to confer with him.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [25TH JULY].

Resolutions reported:

Orders of the Day — ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939.

ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

1. "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 89,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1940 beyond the number already provided in the Army Estimates for the year."

Orders of the Day — ARMY SERVICES.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not ex ceding 100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the

31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Army Estimates for the year."

Schedule.



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£'
£


1. Pay, etc., of the Army-
3,108,000
442,000


2. Territorial Army (to an additional number not exceeding 238,621) and Reserve Forces (to a number not ex-ceding 100,000 for the Militia) -
8,217,000
—


3. Medical services -
348,000
—


4. Educational Establishments -
43,000
—


5. Quartering and Movements -
673,000
—


6. Supplies, road transport and remounts -
4,680,000
18,000


7. Clothing - -
Cr.2,777,000
18,730,000


8. General stores
Cr.5,882,000
15.365,


9. Warlike stores -
Cr.5,906,000
14.,394,000


10. Works, buildings and lands -
Cr.2,593,900
31,777,900


11. Miscellaneous effective services
226,000
1,000


12. War Office - -
8,000
—


13. Half-pay, retired Pay and other non- effective charges for officers - - 
Cr.144.000
4,000


14. Pensions and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non - commissioned officers, men and others -
12,000
—


15. Civil Superannuation, compensation and gratuities - - -
Cr.12,000
—


Total, Army (Supplementary), 1939 £
100
80,731,900

Orders of the Day — AIR SUPPLIMENTRY ESTIMATE 1939

ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF AIR FORCES.
3" That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 32,000 all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom at home and aboard, excluding those on the Indian establishment during the year ending on the 31st day of march, 1940 beyond the number already provide in the air Estimates for the year.


4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ioo, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for expenditure not provided for in the Air Estimates for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


(1) Pay, c., of the Royal Air Force - -
750,000
500,000


(2) Quartering, non-technical stores, supplies and transportation -
2,350,000
—


(3) Technical and warlike stores -
Cr4,500,000
23,500,000


(4) Works, buildings and repairs-
—
16,000,000


(7) Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
900,100
—


(9) Meteorological and miscellaneous effective services -
500,000
—


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1939 £
100
40,000,000


Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.

ADDITIONAL NUMBER FOR THE NAVY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an additional number, not exceeding 12,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, be employed for the Sea Service, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940,beyond the number already provided in the Navy Estimates for the year

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: One finds it rather difficult to return to routine business after the discussion we have had in the House during the day. I want to raise a point which was referred to at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. H. Hall) concerning a very estimable body of men, naval

pensioners, who are concerned about their position in the recent calling up. It is in order to get a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, more than anything else to reassure these men, that I raise the point now. I am referring to people who have done their naval service. They have put in 22 years service, entitling them to full pension, which often means that they have done 25 years service, three years of which did not count for pension. They complain of being called up with the Reserve just now because they feel that having reached a certain time of life, nearly middle age, having done their full naval service and received their pensions, they are in positions which it would be very difficult for them to get back again if they should lose them by being called up.
They complain that they have had no option to join the Reserve, that they have not got any retaining fee or clothing allowance. Some of them have written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asking whether they are to be penalised because they have done 10 years more service than others. I know that these men in addition to receiving their pensions will receive full pay, and it will comfort them a bit if they can be assured that their services are fully appreciated. These men have given good service to the Navy, they are men of the highest character, and indeed, have been the backbone of our Navy. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why they have been called up and whether there is any real necessity considering that they already have done their full service. They are men well on in years, most of them in good positions, and they will be under a very great disadvantage if they lose their present positions by being re-called to the Navy.

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I must apologise to the hon. Member and to the Committee that unfortunately I was not in my place last night when the Navy Vote was reached, but I was engaged on official business outside, and could not get back in time. The hon. Member has raised a question of the inconvenience and perhaps hardship which will be suffered by a certain section of the men who are being called up, and


who have done their full service. The hon. Member will realise that every officer and every naval rating joins under the full understanding that at the end of his term of service he is liable to be called up in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, we have tried to make the calling up as free from inconvenience as possible. They are to get their full pensions and full rate on active service and also an outfit allowance. The hon. Member has referred to the good spirit of these men. I should like to endorse what he has said. I am sure that the Board of Admiralty recognises, as does every Member who has served in the Board of Admiralty, how much this country owes to the reservists, who do suffer a great deal of inconvenience by being called up at a moment's notice. Many of them, have to make arrangements suddenly in connection with their families and businesses, their civil and social obligations, and when many of them have fixed their holidays. Then comes along this urgent summons requiring them to report on the 31st July. I am sure that the House and the nation will desire to express how much they appreciate the spirit of these men, their devotion to duty and their loyal service, and to say what added confidence the nation enjoys by reason of the fact that this Reserve Fleet is being put into commission. The confidence inspired by the mobilisation of this fleet of 130 vessels must show the pensioners and reservists what the country thinks of them.
We will try to deal with cases of severe hardship, and we have instructed the commodores, in their own discretion, to deal with such cases. When these men report to their depots they can represent their cases through the usual channels, and the commodores have been given instructions to deal with exceptional cases by liberating these men. These men who are doing duty in August and September will feel that they are performing as great a service to their country as ever they have performed during their naval service.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I appreciate the opportunity which has occurred for the House to pay a tribute to the Reserve men who have been mobilised for the purpose of showing what is our Reserve strength. It is important that at this stage we should make it plain to our own countrymen,

and to Europe, that the Reserve Fleet is there and is capable of action. It is from that point of view that we ought to recognise what amounts very often to a sacrifice by these men. I have received a number of communications from men in the Reserve, some of whom seem a little doubtful about their position. It is necessary to make clear to our naval pensioners that their contract for pensions in respect of long-term service connotes that they have a liability to be mobilised for a limited period in a time of national emergency. Until that is made clear perhaps there will be some continuing misunderstanding in the matter.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has paid a tribute to these men, for the stiffening of our naval resources in time of emergency by these men is essential. I hope these men who have written to me, and whose names obviously cannot be revealed, will gather from these proceedings that their services are really appreciated. I hope there will be an opportunity on another occasion to say a word about the Fleet Supplementary Reserve. I understand that the Board of Admiralty have given attention to some of the grievances of the Supplementary Reserve, and I hope that the men will understand that their grievances are being attended to and that we want to get as large an amount of unity as we can in this service.
I hope the publicity which the Press will give to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement will have that effect. In regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement on the acquisition of a considerable number of trawlers, which must be an auxiliary addition to the Fleet strength at the present time, I hope that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and other hon. Members, that those men might possibly be faced with unemployment as a result of this acquisition, will be considered as far as possible in regard to their being absorbed into work for the Royal Navy. It would be very comforting if the Parliamentary Secretary could give an assurance that this will be considered.

10.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to say how anxious the people in Grimsby feel that these men should not be unem-


ployed. I had an opportunity in a supplementary question this afternoon of pressing this point. I hope very much to hear that the question of their employment has been satisfactorily settled. There is one point I should like to raise with regard to the reservists. A good many of the reservists are small farmers and smallholders, and I hope that it may be possible to allow them to take their service a little later in the year, so that they can do their harvest.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to the points that have been raised, I should like to say a word or two with regard to the acquisition of 80 of the beat trawlers of our fishing fleets. Several hon. Members, I among them, have been pressing upon the Admiralty during the whole of this Parliament that they should take some measures with regard to preserving the strength of our auxiliary fishing vessels, and with regard to those who man them. I do not propose to give any figures, but I am certain that hon. Members would be shocked if I were to give a comparison of the number of patrol and auxiliary vessels available to the Navy at the present time and the number available during the last War. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that, by the acquisition of 80 trawlers, he has solved the problem of patrol and auxiliary vessels.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that we are now discussing Vote A and not the number of vessels.

Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, it is impossible to deal with patrol vessels without dealing with the men, or to deal with the men without dealing with the patrol vessels. If by merely switching from the number of vessels to the number of men, I shall thereby bring myself in order, I will do so immediately. I contend that it is impossible to get the men to man these vessels unless they are trained seamen, and they cannot be trained adequately on the type of vessels which are fishing round the ports at the present time. These 80 vessels represent the cream of the fishing fleets, and even so, they do not compare favourably with similar and

corresponding vessels which are being built at the present time by Germany. I ask that, instead of purchasing the cream of our fishing fleet, the Admiralty should endeavour to promote some scheme of scrapping the worst and most inefficient vessels and building higher class vessels to take their place, thereby doing a splendid service both to the fishing industry and to the Navy.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Shakespeare: I should like to give a brief assurance, and to thank the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) for adding his tribute to mine as regards the Reserve generally. It is our intention to take up these trawlers with as little inconvenience as possible to the fishing industry. We are not going to purchase the trawlers from one port or two ports; we are going to do it in such a way that it will have the least effect on the fishing fleet. We shall take the trawlers from all over the country. Our own view is that it will not diminish employment in the fishing community. In so far as we limit the number of trawlers there will be equivalent employment for the fishermen. I hope before the House rises to have an opportunity, perhaps at Question Time, of stating the terms of service which it is proposed to offer to the fishermen. We shall really be providing a new source of employment for fishermen who might otherwise be unemployed during the slack period. I assure hon. Members we have these matters very much in mind and I will bear in mind particularly the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones).

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock